New Exchange to Domino case study -- in a 160 user organization

August 11 2006

Here's a small association getting huge benefits out of Domino, especially as compared to their old Exchange system:

"Microsoft Exchange was unstable and inflexible," says Craig Haarmeyer, information services specialist at CCPOA. "And because it is proprietary and platform-dependent, we were limited in terms of accessibility and integration."

In fact, the Microsoft Exchange server was so unstable that it began to pose a significant drain on productivity and morale. "I never got any sleep," explains Haarmeyer. "I'd be in bed or taking my kids to school and my phone would ring--I would have to walk somebody through the procedure of restarting the server. It was ridiculous. It got to the point where we would just cross our fingers and reboot."
Domino to the rescue...
"Our users are delighted at how much more powerful the Lotus software is compared to what we were using before," says Haarmeyer ..."By delivering the right message to the right people at the right location, we can better serve our members," says Haarmeyer. ...

Not only has it increased uptime and reduced service calls, lowering the total cost of ownership of the system, it has also allowed Haarmeyer to rest easier. "The system has gone down only twice in the past two years," he says, "and both times were due to power failure. I can finally sleep at night!"
Now that is a case study.  Plus, it's Domino on Linux, so they've moved away from MS on more than one dependency.

Link: ibm.com: IBM helps peace officers' association improve communication and collaboration >

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Lotus  Add/View Comments [44]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  GarryL  | 8/12/2006 2:32:30 AM

    Great story. We could do with more examples of Domino working for poeple in an smaller enviroment.

    Lets others see that IBM stuff isn't just for larger companies.

  1. 2  Peter de Haas http://www.peterdehaas.net | 8/12/2006 5:40:22 AM

    Ed,

    Ofcourse these type of casestudies go back and forth. Based on the very limited information of their "old"environment you can conclude this organsiation was not on a current Microsoft platform for their email.

    Especially the mobility issues they faced have now been filled in with a Domino Server + a BlackBerry Enterprise instead of a Microsoft Exchnage 2003 server. So more servers in fact.

    A true apples and oranges story if you ask me; comparing 5 years + old Microsoft technology against current Lotus Notes Domino ...

  1. 3  Chris Whisonant http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com | 8/12/2006 6:38:54 AM

    @1 - Great point about showing that Domino is good for small businesses as well.

    @2 - Perhaps they just didn't want to use the Windows Mobile integration. It could be that they like BlackBerries instead of the Windows devices. I sure do! And, of course, they could have used a BES with their old Exchange server.

    Also, have you not read all of the horror stories of upgrading Exchange servers? I don't believe I would be too confident in an upgrade of an already unstable implementation. They may even want to further rid their enterprise of MS and go with Linux on the desktop...

    Also, is comparing Domino to Exchange ever apples to apples? One is JUST an email and PIM platform. The other is FAR more. And you could say the same about comparing a nearly 3 year old version of Exchange with Domino 7.0.1 released in 1Q 06 and Domino 7.0.2 coming out in 3Q (hopefully).

  1. 4  Peter de Haas http://www.peterdehaas.net | 8/12/2006 7:44:12 AM

    @3

    You are completely right an objective comaprison should never be MS Exchnage vs Lotus Notes Domino.

    This organisation may have limited itsself by this viewpoint ...

  1. 5  GarryL  | 8/12/2006 8:10:56 AM

    @2

    The article states that "Haarmeyer decided it was time for a new, platform-independent collaborative application. In particular, he wanted one that could be accessed from the Web and PDAs, integrate with the association’s Informix database and run on a variety of operating systems, including Linux or UNIX®"

    The fact that they wanted platform independence would rule out Exchange straight away, I know that’s one reason we chose Domino - it gives you more flexibility as to what you run it on. And with regards the technology being old, I would say that they have had a reasonable run from their investment, and we going through the usual tech refresh. Their needs had changed and they have moved to a single application that meets all of their needs.

    @4, what would you have compared against from the Microsoft stable?

  1. 6  Peter de Haas http://www.peterdehaas.net | 8/12/2006 8:31:23 AM

    @5

    Depends on the solution required ...

    Defenitly in there would be Windows Server 2003, MS Exchange and SQL Server. If you want I can send you some independent information doing a good comaprison for you ;-)

  1. 7  GarryL  | 8/12/2006 8:39:31 AM

    Peter,

    Surely the disadvantage then is that you have (taking out the OS as every application needs something to run on) you actually have 2 separate MS products to compete with 1 Lotus? With the MS route wouldn’t you then need 2 servers, and staff with both SQL experience and Exchange experience?

    Lotus will let then tie their Informix database into Notes directly; I cannot see how you would be able to do that with Outlook with the same as Notes.

  1. 8  Asad Quraishi http://quad4b.blogspot.com | 8/12/2006 12:25:56 PM

    @2

    I'd have to agree. I don't like apples to oranges comparisons. We too often use them to justify our point as a scientist would read into his research data to prove his theory even though there's little correlation.

    I am heading up a department that has been looking at exchange 2003 versus Notes/Domino migration for 500 users from exchange 5.5. 5.5 is very unstable given how long we've been operating the infratsructure, how poorly managed it's been and the increasing load on it, and admittedly, the technology itself. We've chosen Notes/Domino, not for stability but for platform choice, TCO, security (mono-culture risk avoidance). It will be less expensive to manage LPARd AIX p-servers than multiple windows servers. Less expensive to manage one infrastructure component (Domino) that fills multiple functions (e-mail, collaborative applications, QuickPlace, Sametime) than managing exchange 2003, SQL server, and Sharepoint portal server. Less security risk running an AIX infrastructure than Windows (worms, other vulnerabilities). I'd like to see more comparisons that discuss these issues than the one you've referenced.

  1. 9  Jens http://www.ligonet.ch | 8/12/2006 2:12:40 PM

    Asad, thats really an interesting comparision

  1. 10  Peter de Haas http://www.peterdehaas.net | 8/12/2006 2:17:41 PM

    @8

    Would love to assist in that comparison ;-). I've made quite a few already with alternate success.

  1. 11  Mike Robinson http://www.invcs.com | 8/12/2006 2:23:52 PM

    This is great. I'm glad to see Peter responding. I only scanned the article so I couldn't find out what version of Exchange this company is running on. 160 users is probably "noise" to Microsoft and IBM, it's not like losing or gaining a 100,000 user company. However many many MANY small companies are *frozen* on the old versions of Exchange such as 5.5. There's a huge install base out there. The migration to even 2000-2003 is a monumental effort involving, lots of downtime, lots of risk for data loss, and $$ for consultants because in house staff doesn't know how to do it. I've seen way to many 5.5 shops frozen in time with their messaging because of this. Migrations from 5.5 to Exchange 2003 that started years ago. So the comparison against Domino today is very valid.

    Furthermore the small shops aren't going to get the volume CAL discounts a bigger entity could negotiate, so moving them off of Windows to Linux is another win for the pocket book.

    Microsoft has to many depedencies and moving parts for their "collobration" offering (but in fairness so does the Workplace offering).

  1. 12  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 8/12/2006 8:13:33 PM

    @8: if your prior Exchange environment was poorly managed, what steps are you taking to ensure that your new environment is better managed? Serious question; I'm not just pulling your chain.

  1. 13  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com/ | 8/12/2006 9:07:30 PM

    @12 I have been in many Domino shops in my career and, except for the odd server with hardware issues, I have never seen an environment that ever comes close to the horror stories I have heard with Exchange. Sure, I have seen some of the really scary things that Wild Bill had in his LS session (especially the replication topologies from hell), but the servers are never keeping the administrators up because they are constantly crashing. I've seen third party add-ins do this, but never just Domino. I think the reason for that is that Domino is a much more self contained system than Exchange. For the most part, it doesn't rely on anything else in the environment other than a DNS server. And aside from some performance enhancements, a Domino server for 75 users is the same as it is for 10,000 users.

    One other thing I hadn't really thought about with regards to Exchange 2007 is what's the compelling reason for an SMB to upgrade or migrate to it? One of the great pieces of software from MS has always been their Small Business Server. Unfortunately, I don't see many SMBs implementing it if it includes Exchange 2007 and requires a 64-bit OS and hardware to run it. I wonder if MS has thought about the impact the 64-bit barrier is going to have on the SMB market. I guess you can kiss goodbye having that spare desktop in the corner running the software that runs your business.

    Sean---

  1. 14  Flemming Riis  | 8/13/2006 4:25:26 AM

    -but the servers are never keeping the administrators up because they are constantly crashing.

    and neither does exchange if anyone bothers to take more than 2 minuttes to install it , not being able to run a 160 users exchange says more about the administrators than it does of exchange , no offence but a monkey pressing next 10 times can keep a exchange installation stable in that size.

    this would be a great case if they ripped out exchange and installed domino on the same hardware just to prove thats its better slimmer and faster and more stable than exchange.

  1. 15  Henning Heinz  | 8/13/2006 4:57:45 AM

    It is a case study not a Gartner research. Migration case studies are mostly based on customers being unhappy with their former platform. The Administrator feared of getting unemployed because their Exchange ran too stable so he decided to move to Domino on Linux. Would be a fun story indeed.

    At the end it does not matter why but Microsoft lost.

  1. 16  Asad Quraishi http://quad4b.blogspot.com | 8/13/2006 8:24:39 AM

    @12

    Fair question.

    Unfortunately the solution in this case was to replace some of the key people in the organization. New staff, existing staff performing different functions, new management staff and practices including standards, use of consultants to fill the skills gap when necessary - these are some of the things that will ensure our new infrastructure remains well managed.

  1. 17  Peter de Haas http://www.peterdehaas.net | 8/13/2006 8:45:40 AM

    @13

    SEan

    "One other thing I hadn't really thought about with regards to Exchange 2007 is what's the compelling reason for an SMB to upgrade or migrate to it"

    Why would this be any different than migrating / upgrading to Notes Domino 7.x.x ?

    I do agree with you whther on site infrastructure for email and collaboration is *the* way to go for SMB's in the (near) future.

    Integration with backoffice systems would be a reason maybe but furthermore Software as a service is a very compelling proposition for SMB's and also for larger corporation. I know that this is a serious bet for Microsoft with Hosted Exchange / Collaboration and more Windows Live based solutions.

    160 users and so much challenges with running an exchnage environment (all thise sleepless nights ..) I would think twince in implementing somthing new and adventurous on site ;-)

  1. 18  Matthijs  | 8/13/2006 10:15:13 AM

    I agree with Flemming. What I don't like about a lot of case studies is remarks like: our Notes server crashed multiple times a day, or our exchange server had to be rebooted every day bla bla bla, the only thing these use cases say is that they had BAD administrators. I think we can agree it's possible to have a 5 9's uptime for both Notes and Exchange when administrated correctly.

  1. 19  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com/ | 8/13/2006 1:26:41 PM

    @17 Peter-

    IMHO, as far as SMBs are concerned, the MAJOR difference between upgrading from any version of Exchange to Exchange 2007 and from any version of Domino to Domino 7 or Hannover is that you can do an in place upgrade of Domino without upgrading any other part of your infrastructure. No need to upgrade hardware. No need to upgrade the OS. No need to upgrade Active Directory.

    From what I have read, most of the enhancements for Exchange 2007 are in the performance and stability area. That's great if your a mid to large company with 1000's of users, but if you're an SMB with 250 users and you don't see that number changing significantly any time soon, why should you upgrade? Sure, if you are buying new hardware, upgrading to Exchange 2007 might be feasible. If not, where's the motivation? As far as Domino is concerned, finding a free hour to bring down the server and upgrade it is all that needs to be done. Regardless of how great you think the MS solution is, you have to agree that an upgrade of Domino is SIGNIFICANTLY simpler. If you can't agree with me on that point, there is no reason to continue our discussions because it would be too much like trying to argue points of faith and religion.

    And I see software as a service running into the same issues that ASPs have, namely that most companies don't trust having their internal data flying off across the Internet to be hosted on someone else's hardware. One of my previous companies hosted their HR system with a vendor and I got the feeling that it was not one of their best decisions. Not being able to have physical access to their own data caused a number of issues and I wonder if the Live solutions will have the same problems.

    Sean---

  1. 20  NeilT  | 8/13/2006 4:32:24 PM

    @14 Flemming. Words right out of my mouth. I have just had to do an NT/Exchange 5.5 build for a connector. I had to build both sides to test it. The pure Exchange 5.5 side, With Exchange running was using 23Mbytes of RAM! Granted without any users but come on. OK so the Linux move and the Domino move are grounds for a Hardware refresh. But you will NEVER run Domino on Exchange 5.5 hardware. Then again, you won't run E2007 either.....

    @17 Peter,

    Back in 2004 I was hired by a BP to move a 65 user company from Exchange 2000 to Domino 6.5.2 on an existing SUN application server. At the same time they were moving file and print to SAMBA running on the same SUN box.

    They got 1TB of Apple Xraid (supported by apple), connected to the SUN box for £4,000 (£12,000 for 256 Gbytes of SUN FC disk).

    Why did they do this? They were constantly blowing the 14Gig?? (small server) limit on the Exchange server and did not want to get into Licensing V.

    One question I was asked many times during the design and setup was "How much space can I get on the server? What is the limit?" My reply? "How much disk can you afford?"

    The one change not budgeted that they did on my recommendation was to up the RAM (with a CPU upgrade scheduled for the next years budget). As far as I am aware, the system is working without problems and they are happy.

    In the SMB space, it's not just about "how much does mail cost", it's about the whole package. When I left they were evaluating OpenOffice.

    If it were just "How much does mail cost" for SMB, they would all be paying $14 per month for Yahoo business mail (500 users)...... But you are right, the synergies of Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail and the likes in the public space driven by advertising revenues are driving the costs down for limited "Live" services.

  1. 21  Bernard Devlin  | 8/13/2006 7:29:26 PM

    @20:"you will NEVER run Domino on Exchange 5.5 hardware"

    Exchange 5.5 is from the 1997-2000 time frame. At that time I was working for a company which had some small, remote offices (maybe 5 staff in each) where the servers only had 32mb of RAM.

    In fact,32MB of RAM appears to have been the minimum recommended even for "Lotus Domino 4.6.X or 5.0.X Server": ({ Link } J:akss.dau.mil/software/26.jsp+%22hardware+requirements%22+ram+%22lotus+notes%22+4.5+server&hl=en&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a&strip=1)

    And only 16MB was required if running on Windows 95!

    'never say never'

  1. 22  Bernard Devlin  | 8/13/2006 7:31:18 PM

    oops..looks like the href to the google cache got mangled... you'll just have to trust me on those figures or construct your own search.

  1. 23  Andy Steven http://www.cycle2max.com | 8/13/2006 11:51:32 PM

    Small Organisation, 160 users! Lotus needs to rethink this. Isn't it something like 75% of people work in organisation under 50 users. That's a lot of the market.

    make some thing appealing for them and watch revenues grow..

  1. 24  Peter de Haas http://www.peterdehaas.net | 8/14/2006 1:20:00 AM

    @20

    @17 Peter

    It's funny that you bring up a migration / upgrade *without* hardware replacement in the context of this casestudy.

    I am pretty sure that in all major upgrade situations after let's day 2-3 years also the hardware, its phyical location, etc, etc. are items to be considered as new software capability allows optimisation in any form (availability, scalability, performance, etc).

    So no matter how well Notes / Domino can "preserve" what you have this is not always the way to go.

    I am quite sure some of the "sleepless nights" will be due to hardware issues ;-)

  1. 25  Peter de Haas http://www.peterdehaas.net | 8/14/2006 1:22:32 AM

    Sorry screwed up on the comment above (24) this should be addressing Seans comment # 19 ;-)

  1. 26  NeilT  | 8/14/2006 6:41:17 AM

    @21 Bernard.

    Naturally I was talking about Domino 6 or 7. You wouldn't run Domino 4.6x any more than you would run Exchange 5.5. So my point is valid, if not technically correct to the last detail.

    My statement should have been :"you will NEVER run the currently supported Domino on Exchange 5.5 hardware".

    Thank you for correcting me.

  1. 27  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 8/14/2006 7:11:56 AM

    @23 can you tell me what relevant characteristics are different between an organisation with 160 employees and one with 50? FWIW, there are stories on { Link } covering companies with SEVEN employees. They're out there now.

  1. 28  Kevin S.  | 8/14/2006 9:53:51 AM

    Well...

    We are a Domino shop with approximately 100 users. We have a subsidiary running Exchange for approximately 3,000 users, and they have been down three times in the last month, due to corruption of the database. In this time period, they have lost mail - a BIG no-no.

    Soon, we will be running a study to compare the two platforms. Yes, I know - apples and oranges, but the participants need to see for themselves how much more Domino has to offer over Exchange.

    I also know companies with ten employees on Domino, as well as a major financial management firm in NYC that is switching from Exchange to Domino. They will run two Domino servers (mail and some apps on one, Sametime on the other). They have 28 employees in two locations.

    Domino works out of the box for small installations, too. Less maintenance requirements, wider platform support choices and you can do much more out of the box.

    No, I don't work for IBM.

  1. 29  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 8/14/2006 10:59:12 AM

    Check out this story on my blog about College Bowl Company ... a 7 person company that revolutionalized their business because of solutions built on top of Notes & Domino ( { Link } ). Notes & Domino plays very well in the VSB and SMB marketplace.

  1. 30  Danny Lawrence  | 8/14/2006 12:47:59 PM

    @20: "you will NEVER run Domino on Exchange 5.5 hardware"

    Hate to say it Peter, but I just retired a Domino Server at a small client's "outpost" office. The box was was a 500mhz AMD K6, 512MB running WNT4 and yes, Domino 7. There were only 4 people in the office so the server wasn't too stressed, but I was running Domino7 on Exchange 5.5 (class) hardware. BTW we replaced the WNT box with a Linux box.

  1. 31  Sean Burgess http://www.phigsaidwhat.com/ | 8/14/2006 1:17:05 PM

    @24 Peter-

    If you go back an reread my comments, you will see I was talking about upgrades of the software, not a migration from one to another. Any time there is a migration, I would whole heartily expect there to be new hardware involved, if just for DR reasons. No IT person in their right mind would trash an existing mail installation when migrating to a new one. There will always be this one email that some VP swears he had on the other system and you had better be able to either retrieve it or prove him wrong.

    The point I was trying to make is that unlike large companies, SMBs do not usually have significant budget for IT equipment. Although upgrading to the latest version of Domino on your existing hardware might not be something that is desired, it is a viable option and always has been. There is NO SUCH OPTION for companies that want to upgrade to Exchange 2007.

    But then again, MS isn't one to give companies lots of options.

    Sean---

  1. 32  NeilT  | 8/14/2006 1:30:17 PM

    @30 512Mbytes!!!!!

    I was thinking 32 or 64. You won't even get Domino7 Started for that.

    The point I was making is this, Exchange 5.5. is ancient. The hardware you use to run it will not run anything current (Exchange or Domino), today. Case in point. We had a P6 200 server with 128Mbytes of RAM quitely sitting in a corner running 16 users on Domino5. We upgraded to Domino 6 and it started to fall over and swap at 5 users. It needed an emergency injection of RAM to run at ALL.

    When making the decision as to whether you move from Exchange to Domino, it is relevant to consider that you will always want to upgrade the hardware whether you change product set or not. The point is what you get out of that hardware, not what you pay for it or how big it is. And that is an entirely different calculation.

  1. 33  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 8/14/2006 3:01:01 PM

    @32: We run VMWare partitions limited to 200 MB of RAM with Win2k Server and Domino 6 or 7, for development and testing purposes (so usage is under 15 concurrent), and we have no performance issues at all. Domino itself sits quite nicely in about 50 MB of that RAM.

    re: your Exchange 5.5 running on 23 MB, what Exchange services were running? I was an Exchange 5.0 admin in a (painful) previous life, and our server provided internal mail, internat mail, and trivial calendaring. It often consumed 150 MB of RAM. This was an NT box with 256 MB of RAM total. We couldn't run anything but Exchange on it. In contrast, our Domino 5 server fit perfectly well on a box that also ran SQL Server and was the Backup Domain Controller.

    Your P6 200 with 128 MB of RAM, on which you were running Domino 5 - when was that hardware purchased? I haven't seen a server with less than 512 MB of RAM in at least 8 years. Upgrading to current release on 8 year old hardware isn't reasonable. Upgrading on 3 year old hardware is reasonable. Try that with Exchange 2007, then try it with Domino 7, and see which goes better.

    My point is that whether or not you will need to upgrade your hardware to move from Exchange to Domino depends on how old that hardware is. The same is true when considering upgrading either product. It's simply not accurate to say that a hardware upgrade will always be necessary, and more than it would be accurate to say that one will never be necessary.

  1. 34  NeilT  | 8/15/2006 6:19:01 AM

    @33

    Rob, my position was in the line of "Tone the rhetroic down or you might have to eat your words".

    In my experience, loud claims over Domino have often been followed by precipitous falls.

    Domino is really fantastic in the right place at the right time. Let's leave it at that and stop saying it's "Good for everyting" and Exchange is "Good for Nothing". Neither statement is true.

  1. 35  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 8/15/2006 8:42:45 AM

    @35

    Oh, indeed, I agree. I haven't witnessed any precipitous falls in my jobs, but I'd never say they don't happen. My favorite truism: all sweeping generalizations are inherently wrong. Including that one. Heh.

  1. 36  NeilT  | 8/15/2006 12:30:48 PM

    @35, hmm Ed deleted something.

    Well, I'll stick with my interpretation which works in my mind....... :-)

  1. 37  Rob McDonagh http://www.CaptainOblivious.com | 8/15/2006 3:55:51 PM

    @36, Naw, Ed didn't delete it - I screwed up my numbering. I typed 35 when I should have typed 34. I hate this kind of non-threaded threading.....

  1. 38  Stefan Loeners  | 8/19/2006 5:49:50 AM

    Hi,

    I just wanted to share an anecdote with you all. When I was applying for a new IT position in an international firm, I had an interview with the regional IT manager, who tried to convince me that Notes would be discontinued and that the firm would therefore migrate to Exchange and Sharepoint as soon as possible.

    You have guessed right, my interviewer was a former Microsoft employee.

    Needless to say that I did not accept the job offer. They were looking for someone to lead the project, and probably to take the blame if it goes wrong (which is what will happen)

    Stefan

  1. 39  Mike  | 8/19/2006 7:09:08 PM

    @18

    I agree. I have just overseen an Exchange 2003 to Domino 7.x for 500+ users. The driver for me was not product features but *ease* of administration. As an IS Mgr for a company 600 kms away from the nearest city, finding *qualified* and *experienced* email administrators for either platform is hard. I have plenty of "trained @home" IS people who are capable on day-to-day, but that in depth, midnight fix the day before a major business event type person ... no. Domino DR for me is a tape (mailboxes), a Domino CD and a copy of names.nsf/notes.ini ... even I can do that! Having said that the migration was not painless, but the long term benefit is certaily worth the short term pain.

  1. 40  Greg Walrath http://www.univarusa.com | 8/21/2006 11:36:07 AM

    @31 - "No IT person in their right mind would trash an existing mail installation when migrating to a new one."

    Unless the platform in question gave them no choice.

    I've been working for a 4000-person company using Exchange for the last five years. I've watched others try twice to "upgrade" Exchange, from 5.5 to 2000 and 2000 to 2003. In both cases, they were not able to do an in-place upgrade. In both cases, they worked extensively with MS (whose headquarters is just a few minutes away) who did everything they could to do this 'upgrade', and failed both times. In both cases, it turned out to be cheaper to buy all new hardware, install the newer version of Exchange on the system, and simply migrate users from the old platform to the new one.

  1. 41  stephen hood  | 8/22/2006 12:04:40 PM

    @40

    Did MS pick up the entire bill for the *multiple* failures or did you have to eat *any* part of it?

    @24

    Was @40 what you meant about the hardware replacement costs in the context of this case study?

    Maybe what you meant to say was..

    I am quite sure some of the "sleepless nights" will be due to SOFTWARE and hardware issues ;-)

    At least it's that way for Exchange users.

  1. 42  Bill Malchisky  | 8/22/2006 7:13:47 PM

    @24

    Having personally built Mr. Haarmeyer's Linux box, I can tell you that he had quality hardware, < 3 yrs old and is a very skilled specialist. :)

    Additionally, to cut costs, we recycled one of his Exchange servers to be his Domino hub and SMTP server, which runs quite well with Linux. And consolidated all other Exchange servers to one Intel box running Linux. They are small but distributed, and the MS model made it easier to break-up their firm. Notes OUs allowed for secure consolidation.

    Both of their Domino on Linux boxes have been up without issues (except for two extended power failures) for two years.

    Finally, I routinely recycle hardware for budget strapped firms when moving to Domino for Linux. It works great and they get a couple more years on their hardware.

    So, if you have questions about Domino on Linux or moving from Windows to Linux, just fire away.

  1. 43  Bill Malchisky  | 8/23/2006 12:02:11 AM

    p.s. clearly, this effort is GreyDuck's success. They are a quality firm. I just helped out a good friend when he needed a hand due to resource constraints with multiple simultaneous client demands...not taking anything from their efforts, for clarity.

    To that point, I felt it appropriate to chime-in, and provide some insight to comments posted here. Nothing more.

  1. 44  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 8/23/2006 12:48:02 AM

    @43 was glad to get your comments, Bill.