Microsoft Exchange Server 2016 Is Shipping 94
jones_supa writes: Microsoft's mail and calendar server package Exchange Server 2016 is being refreshed and is now out of preview, along with the 2016 revamp for other Office products. The new Exchange tries to simplify the software's architecture while still adding new features and working better with other Office products. You can now use links from Sharepoint 2016 and OneDrive for Business as email attachments, instead of having to upload the actual file, leading to more robust file sharing and editing. Add-ins have been introduced, which allows extensibility similar to extensions on a web browser. Microsoft is providing a 180-day trial for free.
this will be the year (Score:5, Funny)
Of windows on the server
Integrated vs. interfaced. (Score:1)
The issue I have with Microsoft's approach to software is that they like to make large do everything software. vs smaller do one thing and do it well software.
Re: Integrated vs. interfaced. (Score:2)
They're sitting on billions because they know how to market to the people holding the purse strings (non-technical executives). Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft...even if its not the best tool for the job (and I will give it to them...some of their stuff is genuinely the best). That said, You'd be surprised how little "compiling" of software is required these days with linux-based solutions. Also, my biggest gripe about Microsoft is having to look for non-descript error codes online to figure out
Re: (Score:1)
things like going through error logs and doing online searches for error codes are for people whose time is worth less than the software is. If it takes me an hour to figure something out, I've already lost money as compared to just buying the latest version of Windows.
Sounds to me like you just don't know how to use the software, and that you don't have enough of an install-base to where you really do have to consider the software expense.
Various Linux distributions have been able to use their package management to automatically process updates sourced from a local mirror for longer than Microsoft has had that option. Linux distributions have had rich remote command-line capabilities since Linux's inception, Windows has only recently gotten that level of immersion wi
Re: (Score:2)
it means that people that only think they know what they're doing can really mess things up when they're incorrect.
To be fair, it also means that people who pretty much know what they're doing (but might not be experts) figure out how to do things by browsing through the GUI. I think that's a point that often gets missed by the pro-CLI crowd. CLIs can be much easier and more powerful if you really know all the commands and syntax and intricacies of the shell language, but if not, it's easier to browse through a GUI, see all of your options, and check a few boxes.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell would someone unfamiliar with a CLI even know which fucking man page to start looking at?
I don't know about you, but I started with Packard Bell's Teach Yourself DOS on my 8088 back in 1986 or so and moved on to UNIX In A Nutshell dating to about 1990 sometime thereafter.
Re: (Score:2)
it means that people that only think they know what they're doing can really mess things up when they're incorrect.
To be fair, it also means that people who pretty much know what they're doing (but might not be experts) figure out how to do things by browsing through the GUI. I think that's a point that often gets missed by the pro-CLI crowd. CLIs can be much easier and more powerful if you really know all the commands and syntax and intricacies of the shell language, but if not, it's easier to browse through a GUI, see all of your options, and check a few boxes.
You know what I call those who click-through GUI interfaces only sort-of knowing what they're doing?
Customers.
Re: (Score:1)
I thought I made it clear that googling for obscure error codes was a windows thing....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I LIKE Microsoft's approach to software is that they like to make large do everything software. vs smaller do one thing and do it well software.
I have spent way too much of my life with interoperability problems to be swayed by the do one thing and do it well approach.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue I have with Microsoft's approach to software is that they like to make large do everything software. vs smaller do one thing and do it well software.
That doesn't even pass the first scratch and sniff test.
Exchange does Email. SQL does DB. Windows is the OS. Sharepoint is a CMS. None of these things try to do anything more than what they are, and most of them are market leaders in their field (or at least up there).
I know it's cool to hate on MS, but at least try to make sense when you do...
Re: (Score:1)
Of windows on the server
...only because it takes so damned many of them to do the job of one *nix box...
Refreshed? (Score:2)
It's all clouds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anything on the 'cloud' is no longer secured.... I don't care how shiny and new it is. Data will forever stay on my servers.
Re: (Score:2)
only until you can't afford it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
only until you can't afford it anymore.
...in which case he'll probably have it sitting on tape. *shrug*
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that mentality, but at the same time, I have to wonder: do you have a team of admins who are experts in security in general, and in securing the email software you use in specific? Because if not, your email may be more secure if you outsource it to a group who does have a team of such experts, rather than trying to do it yourself.
Sure, it requires that you trust the team you're outsourcing to-- that's true. If you don't trust Google, don't use them as a mail host. However, I'd rather trust
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, securing email is not that hard, unless you want to "manually" set up a structure to check messages for weird stuff.
You can "outsource" an email hygiene service, to handle the inbound of your email, clean it, and deliver it to your own server (either Exchange or some other thing). You can do that for outbound as well, so your Exchange (or some other thing) will only send and receive SMTP on port 25 from a very specific group of know IPs (the ones from your email hygiene service provider). This
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, securing email is not that hard, unless you want to "manually" set up a structure to check messages for weird stuff.
It's not that complicated, but it's complicated enough that I've seen plenty of people mess it up. And no, it's not just "checking messages for weird stuff". If you think that's all that's involved, then you don't know enough to run a mail server.
Do you know what SSL certificates are, or how to set one up? Do you know how to set up your firewall to allow only the appropriate ports to the Exchange server, and which ports need to be allowed? Do you understand the security implications of allowing incomin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How big is big? I've worked at a couple SMB IT shops over the last decade and 90% of our clients have used Exchange. That may be 70% more recently, with the smallest going to hosted Exchange (typically O365). But really the costs aren't that much to run in-house, and their are a lot of benefits including privacy/security.
I'd say I've only run into one 50+ person company using O365, and they are very unhappy with it (I wasn't directly involved). My exposure/client base in the last 3 years is probably onl
Re: (Score:2)
Imperative? (Score:1)
Am I the only one who reads "Exchange Server" as an imperative? As in "Exchange this server real soon now, Cody!"?
Re: (Score:2)
No your not my first thought when I saw the headline was "I would like to exchange this server"
Will it run on Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Really what MS is shipping is the walled garden Windows+SQL+IIS+Exchange.
Once you walk down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you walk down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Is that not also true of Linux, Apple, Google etc?
Ecosystems are a fact of life and are nothing new. I work in mixed shop so tend not to get religious about it. MS does back office stuff well (Desktop, AD, Office, Email) and Linux does front of house stuff well (Web, DB, Apps, Integration). As someone with feet in both camps, we won't be changing either of these anytime soon, simply because each are both best at what they do.
Re: (Score:1)
Features? Email and Calendar. Seriously, that's what 90% of the people on exchange use. I'm still amazed that no one has come up with something that does this as good as Exchange (in a private network setting).
Re: (Score:2)
Features: LDAP connectivity (global contacts, groups), email, calendaring, meeting resources, tasks lists, public/shared folders, office suite integration, etc. Almost every company on Exchange uses all of these features.
It's ok to be a Microsoft hater. But get the facts right.
Re: This software is still around? (Score:2)
Not to mention integration with videoconferencing systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Also general availability information. Not just scheduled stuff like meetings, but knowing when somebody is available or not. Lync (now Skype for Business) ties deeply into Exchange.
Honest question (Score:1)
I've never used Microsoft software outside the desktop, so I am curious.
What is the advantage of a Windows server vs, say, a Red Hat or Debian server?
Is it just a matter of integrating better with other Microsoft software, or are there other advantages in terms of administration, reliability, etc?
Honest question, not trolling.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ill give an honest response from my point of view. NOTE: I am a Unix/Linux admin and only use windows on the work desktop.
Exchange does provide better integration between things like lync, office, calendar, etc. When talking to a homogeneous environment of windows desktops. I have not seen anything that suggests it is easier to administer, or that it is more stable. I also know that you require more exchange servers than Unix MTA servers for a given load. In that I mean, if you are handling 50,000 users and
Re: (Score:2)
Single MTA doesn't mean it doesn't have redundancy. The parent is right, I work in a global shop with 60k users per regional instance. There are a lot of Exchange, domain controllers, Sharepoint, and IIS servers facing production. Not including the few backups and fail over redundancies. Lets just say a regular DSL connection wouldn't be enough for the North American _sync_ traffic.
As for pointers, MS does do a lot of testing inside their walls and covers about 70% of the real world scenarios. Well not
Re: (Score:2)
To be a bit fairer to exchange. Exchange also does things like calendaring, group calendars, tasks, journals, notes, etc and that is exchange and outlooks strong point merging the standard office communications and calendaring system together.
Comparing exchange to just an MTA is wrong. Of course you can also run a Caldev server, and some kind of group note task server on the same hardware but your requirements go up.
Exchange, Zimbra, GroupWise, Postifx Admin Here (Score:1)
Exchange is FAR more feature rich (it's not an MTA it's a groupware suite) and is easier to administer in most ways than Postifx or the Postfix based suites, including Zimbra. This is generally true even for non-Windows clients. However, when looking at Windows clients there is nothing even vaguely close to compare to Exchange in terms of features, administrative capability and ease...
Here's just one simple example that has been present in Exchange since the beginning. What does it take to move a user's mul
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone, ANYONE that argues to the contrary of Exchange's ease of use, has not administered Exchange. This from someone that loves Postfix and sometimes puts Postfix in front of Exchange for free spam/virus filtering or special routing needs.
Exchange is something I never understood. The first version I screwed with was about 20 years ago before an official SMTP connector even existed. Since that time I've tried some of the new releases and it is always the same crap. Runs for a while and then something gets stuck in a queue some process gets a memory leak or crashes constantly, a datastore (f'ing Jet) gets corrupted, syncs mysteriously failing. It was an endless parade of failure and this was only a few people screwing around. There was alw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With Exchange such a move is completely seamless and requires only
I am sorry. I agree with your post in general. But this is a peeve of mine. I want to slap anyone who throws up this regurgitated MS dribble about any MS product and punch any MS Consultant that states the same. We have done exactly what you said for MEGABYTE mailboxes for 20k+ instances. The project plan didn't even have a manager & service desk communication, let alone end user communications. It was all supposed to be seamless back end stuff driven by MS tools and MS environment, off hours. Our
an unexpected twist! (Score:1)
so now the Exchange Server reads your emails and writes a fanfic where you and your boss are star-crossed lovers for 180 days? i certainly didn't see that coming.
winmail.dat (Score:1)
When is Microsoft going to release the specification for exchange-only winmail.dat email format, so the rest of the world gets a usable e-mail when companies miss-configure there exchange server to let these exchange-only e-mails outside there own LAN? Yes I know there is an old reverse-engineerd winmail.dat reader that can extract some of the attachments, and Thunderbird plugins can at least decode some of the outlook calender notices instead of showing a blank page.
And some of the companies sending this c
We'll see what Microsoft has planned (Score:3)
One thing about Microsoft these days is their relentless push to stop you using their software on-premises, or at least out of their control. "Cloud first" means local datacenter last, so I'm expecting that they're going to be slowly increasing prices to a point where the MBAs have every argument they need to move the company to Office 365. Their hosted email is admittedly very good, but it's still not "yours" and not reliable in the case of network failure, Azure hiccups, etc. I'm definitely not cloud-averse, but I do know that it really doesn't cost that much to run an Exchange server in house -- the architecture has changed enough such that it's not total black magic anymore, and the majority of the day to day admin can be done by regular help desk guys or automation tools. So, most normal-sized places with simple email requirements can get away with one guy who's good with Exchange, and it doesn't have to be their full time job until you get to a certain number of users.
Management accounting is weird -- it makes more financial sense for a company to pay and pay for years on end for a service in a subscription format, rather than buy and hold onto a software license. Same thing goes for assets -- every big company is falling all over themselves to sell real estate only to pay someone else for the privilege of occupying what was their building...all because of accounting tricks. It's so strange because it's backwards compared to personal accounting. People usually want to pay off their cars or houses and live in them without a mortgage or car loan, for example. Businesses seem to want to go to software companies and say, "Please, let me pay you forever to use your software."
Re: (Score:2)
One thing about Microsoft these days is their relentless push to stop you using their software on-premises, or at least out of their control.
I don't think Microsoft is driving that trend. People want it. Microsoft has actually been slow to respond, because I think they'd actually prefer that you keep running their servers onsite. My sense is that their push toward "the cloud" is actually an attempt to prevent other cloud providers from drinking their milkshake, and in fact they've been too slow to react.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Management accounting is weird -- it makes more financial sense for a company to pay and pay for years on end for a service in a subscription format, rather than buy and hold onto a software license. Same thing goes for assets -- every big company is falling all over themselves to sell real estate only to pay someone else for the privilege of occupying what was their building...all because of accounting tricks. It's so strange because it's backwards compared to personal accounting.
The differences are nothing of the sort. It all comes down to cost benefit. The reason you think it's different to personal accounting is that most people are horrendous at accounting for the lifetime cost of things around them. The way management accounting works is that you take the current asset cost look at the asset life and the final value of the asset. In there you add the pros and cons of having to hold the asset in a steady state (i.e. the same reason I just rented an apartment even though can affo
Re: (Score:1)
One thing about Microsoft these days is their relentless push to stop you using their software on-premises, or at least out of their control. "Cloud first" means local datacenter last, so I'm expecting that they're going to be slowly increasing prices to a point where the MBAs have every argument they need to move the company to Office 365. Their hosted email is admittedly very good, but it's still not "yours" and not reliable in the case of network failure, Azure hiccups, etc. I'm definitely not cloud-averse, but I do know that it really doesn't cost that much to run an Exchange server in house -- the architecture has changed enough such that it's not total black magic anymore, and the majority of the day to day admin can be done by regular help desk guys or automation tools. So, most normal-sized places with simple email requirements can get away with one guy who's good with Exchange, and it doesn't have to be their full time job until you get to a certain number of users.
Management accounting is weird -- it makes more financial sense for a company to pay and pay for years on end for a service in a subscription format, rather than buy and hold onto a software license. Same thing goes for assets -- every big company is falling all over themselves to sell real estate only to pay someone else for the privilege of occupying what was their building...all because of accounting tricks. It's so strange because it's backwards compared to personal accounting. People usually want to pay off their cars or houses and live in them without a mortgage or car loan, for example. Businesses seem to want to go to software companies and say, "Please, let me pay you forever to use your software."
Unless you need to customize your software on the database level it's going to be cheaper to host your products in a cloud environment, long term. These cloud companies can offer it cheaper based on existing infrastructure than what most small or even large companies would need to purchase in house.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so strange because it's backwards compared to personal accounting. People usually want to pay off their cars or houses and live in them without a mortgage or car loan, for example. Businesses seem to want to go to software companies and say, "Please, let me pay you forever to use your software."
(In the general case...)
As an individual, you have to consider the last 10-20 years of your life where you will need to survive without an income.
As a business, you do not.
Specific to hosted vs local systems, ge
Re: (Score:2)
Their hosted email is admittedly very good, but it's still not "yours" and not reliable in the case of network failure, Azure hiccups, etc.
And I still don't know what their recommended solution is for accessing O365 on that day every leap year.
I used to care (Score:2)
Who is going to use it? (Score:2)
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:1)
Regulated ones. Archaic ones. Ones with a lot of legal issues. There are plenty of use cases, though most of them will be solved through contractual obligations at some point and everybody will migrate to the cloud.
There really isn't a market for IT Pros as much any more... everybody is turning more and more into a developer, and that's what will be needed to manage this type of stuff; DevOps and Developers. IT Admins are now a commodity.
Re: (Score:2)
There really isn't a market for IT Pros as much any more... everybody is turning more and more into a developer, and that's what will be needed to manage this type of stuff; DevOps and Developers. IT Admins are now a commodity.
I think it depends on the type of business. I'm a SysAdmin and I've been involved in a very specific, "niche" industry for over ten years, which in hindsight was a GodSend... I would completely agree regarding IT in traditional Enterprise Operations where it's an AD/Exchange environment with all the usual departments doing the traditional tasks. I would assume that is about 80% of the market.
In reality, managing O365 is much more of a PITA and time consuming, from a "hand holding" perspective than loc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until the first 365 compromise, where you find out that all your documents, email and everything else that you use to communicate with customers and internally just became public.
Then see the sudden rush of realisation that just because Microsoft were hosting it for you, doesn't excuse you of your data protection obligations (at least for the entire EU), and you can't put the blame on them either.
Re: (Score:2)
We still use Exchange on premise. It is far cheaper to purchase the Windows and Exchange license with the appropriate CALs when we already have the virtual infrastructure in place to handle it. Why pay for a permanent subscription when we can host for a fraction of the cost.
Just deployed 2013! (Score:2)
Hahaha. My employer just deployed 2013. At least older versions are more stable! :P