This review was published in Infoworld in October, 2003, and I linked to it (mainly without comment) at that time.  Interestingly, it took a competitor's e-mail to draw my attention back to it.
In early February, Infoworld reviewed Plumtree's portal.  Plumtree then issued a press release to compare their score to Infoworld's preview reviews of  WebSphere Portal, and Microsoft SharePoint Portal, which were both published in October, 2003.  Based on the review scores, Plumtree scored highest.  Obliquely, the full text of their press release (a misnomer in this case, since they're mailing it out to their prospects and customers) indicates that buying decisions shouldn't be made just on the basis of such a review.  That part of the release, of course, was missing from the spam-mail, with a link substituted as "for the complete press release, visit our website at ....".  Sneaky.
Still, in rereading the WebSphere Portal review, I found some real surprises in the text.

In version 5.0, the complex setup in Version 4.2 has been replaced by a much faster, wizard-based install. I had my Version 5.0 application server, DB2 database, and core applications running in about two hours. I then modified my configuration -- adding collaboration, search, developer's tools, and third-party portlets -- without needing to reinstall the base software.
New admin portlets cut my total setup time to under a day. For example, simple forms made it easy to add users to different roles, assign share permissions to pages, and specify content that appeared in a company news portlet.
When I talk to people approaching WebSphere Portal from a Domino-based background, what I always hear is that WP is hard to install.  I've heard specific stories, not just conjecture, so it seems like there probably is some truth to it.  But this reviewer, who says it took him half a day to do "initial setup" of Plumtree's portal, got WebSphere Portal running faster than that.
Link: Infoworld: IBM Polishes the Portal >

Post a Comment