Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: What's your reasoning? (Score 1) 554

by dstillz (#37014788) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Self-Hosted Gmail Alternatives?

Why are you doing this?

I guarantee you that any self-hosted system will have more downtime, and more overall management time than just sticking with Google or another provider.

I wouldn't put the e-mail server and the Web/database server on the same machine. In fact, if you're going to do this right, you probably want a mail server in a datacenter that does nothing but receive the incoming mail and hold it back in case your local e-mail server is down. And once you've done that, you might as well be using a "cloud" e-mail provider.

That said, I have used Zimbra, and it works. I will also support the recommendation of Roundcube.

Comment: Re:Not quite because of Linux... (Score 1) 610

by dstillz (#12582029) Attached to: Microsoft Developing Windows for Low-End Machines
When comparing Windows XP to Windows 2000, you will find that XP is faster than 2k, no matter what, as long as the reference machine has at least 128 megs of RAM.

XP boots and shuts down twice as fast. With the eye candy turned off and "classic" Explorer enabled, the interface will be far more responsive on an XP machine.

I speak from experience. My fastest computer is an 850MHz Athlon, and I use both Linux and Windows on machines as slow as 75MHz on a daily basis.

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...