4 ms·

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

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.

4 ms·

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

by Karunamon 6y ago

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.