craig,
i administer several NT servers and a newly set-up linux server.
While i like linux's design, i am not impressed with it's lack of
maturity and support. that being said, i don't envy you going to NT to
run exchange server, because while linux has no corporate support, NT
support comes down to $$$$$$$$$.
NT is a money pit.
$1K for the server version is only the tip of the iceberg.
I'm sure Microsoft is not giving away copies of exchange server or
backoffice.
(without time bombs anyway).
Plus there is the inevitable issue of creating all the user accounts,
etc you made for samba. NT crashed? Oh reinstall the OS and create
them all again. There is no
/etc/passwd file. As for security, check out l0pht heavy industries and
see their take
on NT password security.
While Samba sat on top of Unix, NT file sharing can be a rat's nest.
If you use an NTFS partition, you can set permissions by file and
directory. With FAT, your security plans are hosed.
NT user administration is a JOKE.
One machine die? Need to move the NT hard disk to a backup machine? It
had better be
an EXACT clone of the previous machine, right down to the irq
assignments,
chipset and BIOS version and date. Otherwise you will be looking at
bluescreens
(the world recognized NT screensaver) while your users make your pager
go BEEEEP.
I strongly suggest that you find another mail, etc solution. For
instance, there is supposed to be a FREE sql server that comes with some
linux distributions. There is your bulletproof data repository, maybe
somebody makes a front end that will talk to netscape or even (ugh)
outlook.
-jeff
> My company has an NT/95 network using a Linux/Samba server. I love the
> server it works just like an NT server without the headache.
> My boss asked me about MS Outlook the other day and how we could share
> scheduals, faxes, etc... with it. I told him that was a function of
> Exchange Server for windows NT server. Is there a clone of Exchange server
> out there that would allow us to use Outlook Schedual Sharing and Folder
> sharing?
> Thanks a bunch.
> Craig