3 ms·

I don’t think that’s true at all. Exchange is awful. It’s slow, hard to configure and doesn’t offer anything you can’t do better with simpler tools. Like the m

I don’t think that’s true at all. Exchange is awful. It’s slow, hard to configure and doesn’t offer anything you can’t do better with simpler tools. Like the majority of awful “enterprise” products on the market, the primary reason that it’s popular is because it’s from a megacorp who speaks the language of the buyers, who are all aspiring megacorps. I was horrified the first time I used exchange and couldn’t wait to change providers the moment I had the chance. So it’s more like saying you can secure your house if you use a security service who sets security targets instead of sales targets.

lc9er 6y ago
It’s pretty bad, but it’s probably the best of the available tools at the time. Serious competitors like Groupwise and Lotus were kind of nightmares. Open source alternatives offered great individual components, but not the integrated solution you got with Exchange/Outlook/Sharepoint. Sometimes being the least worst option is all it takes.
Karunamon 6y ago
Exchange ... doesn’t offer anything you can’t do better with simpler tools. I call maximum shenanigans on this. Exchange is a fully-integrated groupware suite with a single-pane-of-glass on both the management and the user side. I am aware of precisely zero feature-complete alternatives, let alone anything "better".
- kaliszad 6y ago
  Feature completeness doesn't mean the software is better. I think, many of those companies affected or the poor people there certainly wished for at least a moment they didn't use Exchange.
- jimnotgym 6y ago
  ...with a huge army of engineers who can do basic admin jobs on it because of the AD integration...with a full suite of structured training programmes to bring up more of those engineers and keep them current.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  I suppose if, as has been my experience, “feature complete” actually means “whatever features ship with Exchange” then you’re right. But isn’t that the tautology of enterprise software? Vendors build a moat of features which end up in enterprise RFPs and ultimately lock out other vendors - not because the features are necessary or even useful, but just because they exist and, perhaps, some department head thinks it might be useful one day - or, more likely in my experience, the consulting firm involved in procurement gets a cut of the action. Having been on both sides of this process, I know exactly how it works in practice. So I’m sure that for some huge enterprises, the complete feature set from Exchange is actually necessary, or at least desirable. But for everyone else - including many companies I’ve worked in at a senior level, and almost certainly many of the victims of this vulnerability - I’d call shenanigans right back at you.

lc9er 6y ago

It’s pretty bad, but it’s probably the best of the available tools at the time. Serious competitors like Groupwise and Lotus were kind of nightmares. Open source alternatives offered great individual components, but not the integrated solution you got with Exchange/Outlook/Sharepoint. Sometimes being the least worst option is all it takes.

Karunamon 6y ago

Exchange ... doesn’t offer anything you can’t do better with simpler tools. I call maximum shenanigans on this. Exchange is a fully-integrated groupware suite with a single-pane-of-glass on both the management and the user side. I am aware of precisely zero feature-complete alternatives, let alone anything "better".

kaliszad 6y ago
Feature completeness doesn't mean the software is better. I think, many of those companies affected or the poor people there certainly wished for at least a moment they didn't use Exchange.
jimnotgym 6y ago
...with a huge army of engineers who can do basic admin jobs on it because of the AD integration...with a full suite of structured training programmes to bring up more of those engineers and keep them current.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
doctor_eval 6y ago
I suppose if, as has been my experience, “feature complete” actually means “whatever features ship with Exchange” then you’re right. But isn’t that the tautology of enterprise software? Vendors build a moat of features which end up in enterprise RFPs and ultimately lock out other vendors - not because the features are necessary or even useful, but just because they exist and, perhaps, some department head thinks it might be useful one day - or, more likely in my experience, the consulting firm involved in procurement gets a cut of the action. Having been on both sides of this process, I know exactly how it works in practice. So I’m sure that for some huge enterprises, the complete feature set from Exchange is actually necessary, or at least desirable. But for everyone else - including many companies I’ve worked in at a senior level, and almost certainly many of the victims of this vulnerability - I’d call shenanigans right back at you.