On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 08:24 -0700, rengland@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I don't believe the responder was equating "Exchange" with an operating > system. They were only pointing out that Linux/Gnu was an entire > operating system with all its complexity and size and it was "free". Why > couldn't an Exchange replacement be free? ---- The issue is the client - Outlook (or as some call it...Look Out). Exchange uses Outlook or OWA (Outlook Web Access) as it's only clients. There are some who want to use the Outlook client and have an open source server on the backend but Microsoft doesn't document their methods or protocols and of course, you are hitting moving targets with changes between Outlook 98, Outlook 2000, Outlook 2002, Outlook 2003. Then there are open source projects that don't wish to get locked into just Outlook clients but want to support open standards such as ical, webdav, etc. So when someone asks about open source options as a replacement to exchange, it means different things to different people. As for equating Exchange with an operating system, it is sold as a bundle with the OS so the equate seems logical. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
