From: Mike '/m' 

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 19:18:34 -0500, John Cuccia  wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 19:36:59 -0400, Mike '/m'  wrote:
>
>>>But the savings were said to accrue from a reduction in the number of
>>>servers required.  Fewer machines means fewer admins, of any ilk.
>>
>>
>>Ahhh... an interesting point.   More Windows servers were needed to
>>accomplish the same business tasks.
>
>That's a possiblity, but not the only one.  Theabove that may not have
>been a technical issue, or an indication of the relative costs and
>capabilities of the Microsoft solution and the Open Source solution,
>*except as configured by the internal IT department*.
>
>>Linux was able to do more with less servers.
>
>Perhaps.  But maybe the internal IT staff were using more servers than
>were actually required (to satisfy regional IT political strictures,
>perhaps? That's very, very common.) to provide the required Exchange
>services.  And maybe the outsourcing vendor will eliminate the Linux
>system's advantage by centralizing Exchange administration and
>consolidating mailboxes and data into fewer, bigger servers.
>
>We simply can't draw a conclusion with regard to either possiblity
>from the article.
>

The only real conclusion that can be drawn is that Merrill lynch is
switching to Linux to save money.   :-)

 /m

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4