Talk:Skype for Business Server

message: A flame in the guise of an article, methinks...
I'll fix it when I get a moment to do so, but if anyone else cares to do so in the meantime... SiliconCerebrate 16:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A flame 

message: :The only large competition is IBM's Sametime component of its Lotus Notes platform, and of course the public instant messaging networks.
Hey, what about Jabber? I work at a company with several offices spread over about 1,500 km, with at least six zones firewalled off from each other. It took just one guy all of about 4 hours to set up an intranet Jabber network, for basically no cost (the server was salvaged from the spare parts room), and it works just fine. Current free servers don't do VoIP or video (set to change soon: see Jingle (protocol)), but otherwise it is not so much "competition" as "blows LCS out of the water". And Jabber isn't the only alternative; check out the comparison of instant messaging clients and the comparison of instant messaging protocols. There are a whole bunch of free systems for establishing your own intranet IM system. Oh, and as for large scale: there are existing ejabberd served Jabber networks which frequently exceed 25,000 simultaneous conversations.
:log and archive all message traffic passing through the server, increasingly a legal requirement for many companies.
IANAL but ... I believe this is quite wrong, perhaps dangerously so. I assume the author is refering to the results of the Arthur Anderson decision, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In fact my understanding (based in large part on ) is that, other than financial reporting (which I don't suppose anyone does over IM), it is only important that records not be destroyed "corruptly". For things other than financials (and a few other special cases such as EPA reports), destroying them routinely is fine. Never creating them in the first place is fine -- and in fact often a good idea. Legal discovery of a company's message logs is an extremely destructive process (it costs the target so much money that it is often used as a tactic in and of itself; it discloses company IP; and it facilitates "fishing trips"), and thus avoiding their creation is a prime reason why many corporates are avoiding email for unofficial conversations, and moving to IM. Thus this "feature" of LCS is not a legal requirement but a serious legal liability which in many cases may preclude its adoption. -- 144.138.137.82 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition, and logging 

message: I think some of the History section reads somewhat like a Microsoft brochure to me. Would others feel similarly? Mattlandis (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing reads like a Microsoft brochure to me. It does contain a lot of information, but all of it sounds like it was written in Redmond. Not a word about the (still, in 2013!) lack of any support for Linux clients. Quixote9 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: OCS uses a modified[citation needed] and incompatible[citation needed] Interactive Connectivity Establishment for NAT traversal
.. Incompatible with what ??. I know from voip that there are a lot of vendors, microsoft folows SIP protocol and expanded this protocol where needed to support additinal features, all this has been done acoording to RFC's. I know from others like sisco they are not verry keen on sip, they rather would have you use their skiny protocol (so they can sell phones too) in contrast Microsoft isnt into hardware, so any sip phone will do. Which is a huge contrast to most voip solutions. 
I think reading this page it should also be noted how deeply this software is connected to the front office and other back office products.
Because from there you would see the big differences with other voip solutions. Most people fomr PABX age would agree that now voip has become data communications, from video document sharing to voice over specific clients or over the web, with sometimes options to interact with non users applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.163.250 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 October 2010
: I removed that wording as it caught my attention too. An editor added this 28 July 2009. It was was fairly POVish, and not backed up with citations from reliable sources, and so deleted it. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  is this page vandalized ? 

message: it is XMPP, ie jabber clients can connect. Petur (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTalk is not a proprietary IM service 

message: Imho large parts of the artilce read as an advertisment. A co-Wikipedian already requested that citations or sources were required - but none are given yet.
Based on username User:Lync1 is specifically interested in this product:maybe you can provide the required information or rewrite the article that it is not a copy/paster from the sales brochure but just giving facts - which wouldn't inclue statements like "much improved" etc. Tonkie (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information or adverising 

message: The article currently has a small section captioned "Linux support" that appears to be one editor's attempt to argue with previous editors. I think the question at hand -- does it support Linux -- is important and I'm not taking sides on who is right or wrong, but it seems disagreements like this ought to be hashed out here on the talk page and not in the body of the article. I'm also not familiar enough with the topic to "be bold" and fix it myself, so I'm leaving it there in hopes a more knowledgeable person will clean this up. 129.219.155.89 (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux support 

message: It states that the future name of the Microsoft Lync Server is Skype for Business, meanwhile this name will also be shared with Microsoft Lync's future name. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of the page.