> > > On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Amy Tanner wrote: > > > Might be easier/cheaper to just run VMWare for any apps > like that. Could > > put the data on a linux samba box. But, you'd still have to pay for > > VMWare,Windows, and ACT. > > Well, if you think about it, the VMWare machines are down > unless they're > in use. That would make them rather hard to maintain. If you want to > maintain them while they're up and running, you can't just > fire up VMWare > on your local machine and boot the same Virtual hard disks. They're > locked. > > And each VMWare workstation is a seperate install. > > With Citrix, you have two servers (take the big box you were thinking > about getting, devide in half...) When you need to do > something to them, > disallow new logins to one server. Get it ready to reboot. Eventually > there will be nobody on it, or you'll get bored and kick everyone. But > they'll just reconnect to the other server. Repeate for other > server. And > if one has a hardware problem, the other is still going... > > Unless everyone is admining their own boxen, Citrix seems > like a better > soultion...but that's just me. :) Does anyone use SCO Tarantella for accessing an Exchange Server from a Linux box? I guess the licensing for it is quite a bit less than Citrix. PRIVACY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain business confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If this e-mail was not intended for you, please notify the sender by reply e-mail that you received this in error. Destroy all copies of the original message and attachments.