From: John Cuccia 

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.

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