You are an ignoramous who obviously doesn't have a job in IT -- A CAL is a Server Access licence, not a Windows licence. To access the Windows directory it costs about $25, to access Exchange, about $50 (IIRC).
And yes, corporations that have Microsoft server infrastructure (like Exchange) do pay this.
I looked it up, $31.32 for Server 2000 CAL (bought as part of a 5 pack for $156.60 at Provantage) and $75.34 for an Exchange CAL (once again, bought in a group of 5 for $376.72 at Provantage) Net cost : $106.66 per seat.
I stand by my original statement - I have a real hard time believing that the Linux crew is going line up to fill out Purchase Orders to send Microsoft a hundred bucks a seat for each of the Linux installs they have across organization running Ximian email clients. Good luck convincing me otherwise. For the record, I really like Microsoft - this isn't about what I like / dislike, it is totally about envisioning the Linux users (the kind of Linux users that would be eager early adopters of this Exchange adapter) getting this to work and remembering 'oh yea, maybe I need to send MS a nice Benjamin Franklin plus change because... that's the rule.' Not.
I think you have misidentified the likely users of the exchange connector. It is highly unlikely that the kind of users you are thinking about would want to fire up an exchange connector, as they would never voluntarily deploy exchange as an email server in the first place.
Exchange is primarily an enterprise tool, and there is a large and growing number of companies who are deploying Linux machines to some groups of their employees. These employees need access to exchange, so the relevant license fees will
Huh? Of couse full Linux houses aren't interested in something like this, and nobody is claiming that.
Who it's obviously aimed at are the Windows folks that are looking at migrating into Linux, but are held back by the fact that their whole existing organization is running Exchange. Companies can't afford (or even want to) to be fanatical about anything, paying Microsoft isn't any more of a no-no than paying anyone else. In a situation with otherwise equal "TCO", if they can run one exchange server and baz
Worrying about cost of client access licenses doesn't really seem relevant. If you're in a situation where you can connect Linux clients to an Exchange server, it seems rather likely that you would already have licenses that cover the number of users at your site. Whether one or more of them runs Windows or Linux wouldn't change much as far as I can tell.
I think it's more commonly the other way around, it certainly is here - we've already got the CALs, work just went "500 employees, 500 CALs", and made Exchange+Outlook the standard setup.
Now we can choose whether to run Windows+Outlook (which work had already bought in a bulk licence), or Linux+Evolution. It doesn't save money in the short term, but it does increase the possible ways of working, and it does massively help if you're planning on doing a migration to Linux over a period of time.
Along with everything the other posters replied to you with, this does *way* more than OWA. Palm synching, and appointment reminders come tom mind off the top of my head. OWA is nice to check your e-mail now and then, but other than that it sucks. I'd rather access exchange via IMAP than use OWA.
Actually what I meant was (after having read through the early stack of discussion threads) early impressions were that the method of access to the Exchange Server was to come in through the same interface that OWA uses, necessitating the install of OWA / IIS accessing the Exchange data and getting the data by 'pretending' to be an OWA user coming in over regular HTTP traffic via TCP/IP. The phrase 'OWA backdoor hack' was used in a positive manner, the word 'hack' a respectful term of endearment as associa
Not necessarily true. You might need a client access license but you don't need to purchase a copy of Windows. Additionally, depending on how you have your server configured, multiple people can share a CAL, just not at the same time (per server vice per seat licensing.) MS is still getting a slice of the pie, but their slice is a whole lot smaller.
The biggest thing that MS won't like about this, however, isn't the loss of a few seat licenses but that it opens up an avenue for migrating to Linux. You can convert piecemeal rather than having to switch everything at once.
Well, in most environments its really hard to run a mail server that people use 9-5 with "Per Server" licences. Every place I've ever seen runs "Per Seat", because it substantially cheaper if you have more than 1 MS Server.
About 50% of the developers for my company (software company/Linux shop) run Linux as their primary desktop, a handful of others run it secondary, and all our new back-end stuff is Linux. We're actually in the process of moving to Exchange as we speak, and this is very welcome news as it makes things just that much easier.
We're just one company in a sea of others, but I'm sure we're not an isolated incident.
Until they change the server protocol and make the connector incompatible. Then they will patent the technology and make the connector illegal, like what they are trying to do with SMB and Samba.
But for now we can finally stop using Microsoft Lookout. Hooray.
Okay, I'm running gentoo and just built this from source. A couple of things:
Be sure to specify the proper --prefix= to./configure (probably should be the same one with which Evolution was built).
A few things failed to link. This was solved by adding "-lresolve -lldap" to the proper _LIBS= line in the Makefiles. I only had to do that a couple times.
So, I have it installed and Evolution finds it. It seems to be hung up right now trying to connect to the Exchange server, but at least I got it installed.
Built under garnome on my old redhat 8.0 box, with Evolution 1.4 and it's working fine..
Only thing I have not figured out - GAL. I think it could be needing ldap support?./configure --prefix=$HOME/garnome
make
make install
Fire up evolution, you have to follow the online instructions to use with OWA, and make sure your mailbox names are correct.
Prob old news now, but there is an ebuild in Buzilla, search the Gentoo forums for info. I've got it working, and I'm tickled pink; turned off the win box I used to hit throw rdesktop just to check my calendar.
This is a big deal, Thanks NOVELL!
(and I love you means I hope you don't survive the night)
Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1)
Download the source now!
You're my hero. I was just about to ask "But when will I see source instead of some RedHat 9 RPM?"
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1, Informative)
And yes, corporations that have Microsoft server infrastructure (like Exchange) do pay this.
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:4, Insightful)
I stand by my original statement - I have a real hard time believing that the Linux crew is going line up to fill out Purchase Orders to send Microsoft a hundred bucks a seat for each of the Linux installs they have across organization running Ximian email clients. Good luck convincing me otherwise. For the record, I really like Microsoft - this isn't about what I like / dislike, it is totally about envisioning the Linux users (the kind of Linux users that would be eager early adopters of this Exchange adapter) getting this to work and remembering 'oh yea, maybe I need to send MS a nice Benjamin Franklin plus change because
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1)
Exchange is primarily an enterprise tool, and there is a large and growing number of companies who are deploying Linux machines to some groups of their employees. These employees need access to exchange, so the relevant license fees will
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:2)
Who it's obviously aimed at are the Windows folks that are looking at migrating into Linux, but are held back by the fact that their whole existing organization is running Exchange. Companies can't afford (or even want to) to be fanatical about anything, paying Microsoft isn't any more of a no-no than paying anyone else. In a situation with otherwise equal "TCO", if they can run one exchange server and baz
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1)
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:2)
Now we can choose whether to run Windows+Outlook (which work had already bought in a bulk licence), or Linux+Evolution. It doesn't save money in the short term, but it does increase the possible ways of working, and it does massively help if you're planning on doing a migration to Linux over a period of time.
Ewan
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:2)
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:2)
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest thing that MS won't like about this, however, isn't the loss of a few seat licenses but that it opens up an avenue for migrating to Linux. You can convert piecemeal rather than having to switch everything at once.
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:3, Interesting)
We're just one company in a sea of others, but I'm sure we're not an isolated incident.
Cheers
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:2)
But for now we can finally stop using Microsoft Lookout. Hooray.
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1)
So can somebody explain to me what the point of paying big bucks for a "server OS" is if it won't serve anything?
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1)
Buildling from source (Score:4, Interesting)
Be sure to specify the proper --prefix= to
A few things failed to link. This was solved by adding "-lresolve -lldap" to the proper _LIBS= line in the Makefiles. I only had to do that a couple times.
So, I have it installed and Evolution finds it. It seems to be hung up right now trying to connect to the Exchange server, but at least I got it installed.
Re:Buildling from source (Score:1)
Re:Buildling from source (Score:1)
This is a big deal, Thanks NOVELL!
(and I love you means I hope you don't survive the night)
CVB
Re:Don't wait until the 14th. (Score:1)