Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  John Willemse http://www.badkey.com/ | 4/8/2005 10:24:21 AM

   Thanks for the update and take away all the rumours.

   Please also post some information on the figures Exchange vs. Domino. Like how many sites running Exchange and Domino.

   The history of updates on Exchange is a 'laugh' as of my personal opinion.

   Regards John

1. 2  Michael Diamant http://mysite.verizon.net/mrdiamant/ | 4/8/2005 10:46:36 AM

   LND developer that has migrated off to greener pastures...sorry Ed, I hung in there as long as possible.

1. 3  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 11:07:28 AM

   This article was dismissed quickly in another thread .... (Removed reference to a different article besides the Business Week one quoted in this entry)

   However, it did cite a number of analyst opinions:

   Gartner: In 2003 Gartner estimates IBM had a 46% share of e-mail sales vs. 44.2% for Microsoft. The firm won't comment on 2004 sales yet.

   IDC: In 2003 Microsoft outsold IBM $770 million v. $709 million. The final 2004 figures have not been tallied but the preliminary estimate is that "Microsoft will go up and IBM will go down. The delta is growing," analyst Mark Levitt says.

   Ferris Research: Microsoft has a 60% share of the business e-mail market vs. 25% for Lotus. Microsoft has a larger installed base and generates greater license fees than IBM.

   Meta Group: "Exchange is picking up share, and Notes/Domino is losing share. I'm seeing more defections from Domino. There is migration from Domino to Exchange," says analyst Matt Cain.

   Radicati Group: In 2004, Microsoft had 115 million seats installed worldwide vs. 83 million for IBM. By 2009, Microsoft will have 200 million seats installed vs. 103 million seats for IBM's Notes and Workplace products combined.

   Info-Tech Research Group. Among midsize companies ($1 billion or less in annual sales) in 2004, Microsoft had a 33% market share and IBM had 25%. By end of 2005, Microsoft will reach 35% with IBM dropping to 18%. "A lot of Notes shops are looking elsewhere," analyst Carmi Levy says.

   Regardless of which product you prefer, I do think the more important question -- and one we don't have a clear answer for -- is what are IBM's long-term plans for email? It's unlikley to be Notes and Domino. IBM's issues with Domino and Notes have long been its database, application platform, directory and (to a lesser extent) its management tools.

   I'm a Notes fan, so no argument about its appeal. Also, no debate aboiut IBM's willingness to support Notes and Domino for many years, just as they did OS/2.

   However, will Workplace include a new enterprise-quality mail client and server, and when?

   A small request: let's keep the discussion adult and thoughtful. Let's ignore kool-aid references, and statements "company x is evil and its products are bad." Let's be the BBC, rather than Fox News :-)

1. 4  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/8/2005 11:20:26 AM

   Cliff, thanks for stopping by.

   It's interesting how insistent Microsoft is that this article be discussed on my weblog, when no Microsoft person would particpate in discussions here about the various Microsoft-sponsored or licensed research that was published last year from the very same firms that are quoted as favoring MS in this article.

   Because of the hyperbolic nature of the article in question, I've made the decision not to discuss it here. This is ultimately my weblog, and it's my choice as to what is posted here and what isn't.

   If this turns into a discussion about the article in question, I'll close this thread down.

   As for the assertions that you make about the Notes/Domino roadmap, Cliff, you've been away for what, almost four years now? I'd like to know what basis you have for asserting IBM's long-term direction.

1. 5  Chris Whisonant http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com | 4/8/2005 12:27:07 PM

   Good article. I'm curious as to how many Workplace Messaging users there are. Any rough numbers on that Ed?

1. 6    | 4/8/2005 1:25:47 PM

   Comment removed at author's request

1. 7  Randy Shimizu  | 4/8/2005 1:42:19 PM

   It will be interesting to see interviews when they are published.

   Ed I am a still a little unclear for IBM's decision to market Workplace to new customers and Notes to existing customers only.

   IBM needs to press it's advantage when the opportunity presents itself. Notes 6.5 gives Lotus a clear and distinct advantage over Exchanger server 2003 now that Lotus is implementing DB2.

1. 8  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 2:45:48 PM

   @4 "If this turns into a discussion about the article in question, I'll close this thread down." That would certainly avoid the subject. If you want to dismiss the the article itself or the writer, then I'd be interested in your views on the references: Ferris, Gartner, Meta, Radicati, IDC and InfoTech Research.

   You are correct that I've been away four years. That observation sidesteps the question aboit email strategy. However, to respond, it's possible that in that time IBM's Software Group has decided to embrace the .NSF as a strategic database, Domino Designer as a strageic development tool, and the NAB as a strategic directy and identity management system. However, none of those seems likely based on their overlap with the Webshpere family, and their obvious commitment to Workplace.

   So, without intending any criticism of Notes or Domino, or IBM's plans to support Notes/Domino customers, it does appear that Workplace is a replacement.

   I'll rephrase my question a little though, for anyone who disagrees with that conclusion: what is IBM's long-term email strategy -- client and server? Is it Notes? Is it Workplace mail? Is it Domino? Is it a new mail system?

   @6 I'm not an expert on Groove or our AV/spyware product plans, but I'll take stab at the questions:

   -- Groove integration with Office and Windows is pretty good already - probably because they built to server that market. The Groove-Sharepoint integration is useful (schema interrogation, offline access, synch options). There are some obvious overlaps, though, like Groove's IM and email support. I suspect Groove will be better integrated with LCS/Communicator and I'd expect to see most of that happen in the Office 12 timeframe, next year.

   -- On the AV and anti-sptware, I don't know the answers and I doubt anyone will want to be locked in to a definitive answer. However, if you are willing to put up with a personal and considered opinion, then I'd say it's very likley they'll continue to be basic system and server functions and unlikely to be priced alone. It just doesn't seem to me worth the complexity of another SKU(s).

1. 9  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 4/8/2005 2:53:09 PM

   @7 - "...Notes to existing customers only". Where does it say that? I was recently involved in a 10,000 seat deal for Domino with a completely new customer. Plus we have a team who are working with Exchange customers to get them to migrate (to Domino, I'm not talking about Exchange to Exchange migrations).

   Cliff - nice to hear from you. If I may recount an amusing story that showed your wit... You gave me a lift back to my hotel in Boston the night we had dinner with a customer (a large British company who were visiting for executive briefings). At some traffic lights we pulled up alongside a very expensive-looking car, and inside was an attractive 30-something woman dressed to the nines and dripping in jewellery. Cliff said "hey, look who that is". I looked expecting to see someone famous, but I didn't recognise her. "Who is it?" I asked... to which Cliff replied "the future Mrs Reeves".

   I've never heard Steve Ballmer say anything that witty ;o)

1. 10  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 3:05:19 PM

   @9 Yikes ... let us pray that the current Mrs Reeves doesn't visit edbrill.com :-) ... nice to hear from you, Darren.

1. 11  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 4/8/2005 3:14:41 PM

   @8 I am going to refrain from voicing my personal opinions on the "article" (if you can call it that) in question. However, I will comment on your question about references. The beauty of quotes and figures are they that they can be used to craft whatever message you would like. I could just as easily cite the following (but would prefer Forbes to!) and ask you to please tell us what you think of them.

   - "The message back then was that Workplace was the strategic play. But since that time, the Domino name and reputation seem to have been rehabilitated within IBM, and the company is trying to repair the damage. It has hosted events seemingly every quarter to update press, analysts and customers on the road map and to pledge allegiance to Domino. Analyst Matt Cain, vice president of the Meta Group, said IBM/Lotus has already started de-emphasizing the Workplace messaging. "

   - "Meta Group Inc. analyst Matt Cain said licensing issues are important to most customers. "IBM has [one] separate SKU for e-mail, IM, Web conferencing and team collaboration; Microsoft has an enterprise agreement," said Cain in Stamford, Conn. "If I were Microsoft, I'd be looking at what IBM is doing with a great deal of interest."

   - "Despite the fact that paid support for Exchange 5.5 is slated to end on Dec. 31, version 5.5 of Microsoft's messaging platform is still in use by about 40% of those who answered that question in a recent survey, according to Ferris Research. ... "

   - "Rugullies said the product has been proven to offer enterprise-class scalability and performance. But she said IT managers should be aware of issues in areas such as calendaring and administration.... Calendaring is one of Exchange Server 2003's biggest weaknesses," she said... Rugullies said users had complained of poor synchronisation with the free/busy scheduler, unreliable calendar delegation, double-booking issues with shared mailboxes, and the fact that frequent diary changes sometimes erase meetings. "

   - "Sources at Microsoft have said for some time that key personnel are fleeing the e-mail server effort because it wasn't seen as "strategic." Indeed, a lot of the workgroup/groupware/add-your-favorite-collaboration-connoting-buzzword-here stuff that had been promised for Exchange back in the day, ended up in SharePoint Portal Server and then in the Windows SharePoint Services instead. Exchange never became the collaborative development environment Microsoft once said it would be. " - Barbara Darrow

   "While e-mail has become a critical component of most businesses, the software needed to manage the communications has struggled to keep pace. Microsoft has achieved the goal of high availability, Thompson said, but the software is not as easy to manage as it should be. High-availability e-mail is still too complex," he said.

1. 12  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 4/8/2005 3:39:57 PM

   Very very rarely do I ever agree with Cliff, but I have to on this comment:

   "let's keep the discussion adult and thoughtful. Let's ignore kool-aid references, and statements "company x is evil and its products are bad." Let's be the BBC, rather than Fox News :-)"

   The you must be evil if you think something in Domino sucks, or you must be evil if you think Microsoft might do somethings right can get very tiresome.

   Although putting the BBC and FOX news in the same paragraph is so insulting to the BBC.

1. 13  Tim Browne  | 4/8/2005 4:03:23 PM

   @9 I wonder if we could swap out the IBM-MSFT bits for more funny stories starring Cliff? Having had the office next to his, once upon a time, a long time ago, I would be willing to guarantee upwards of 20 side-splitting anecdotes. OK, maybe the IBM-MSFT bits are more important. Sorry, Ed. <>tim

1. 14  Gary Devendorf  | 4/8/2005 4:11:48 PM

   Sir Bedimir: "How do you know she's a witch?"

   crowd person: "well...she turned me into a newt!"

   SB: "a newt?"

   crowd person: "I got better..."

   other crowd person: "BURN 'ER ANYWAYS!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

   Sorry for the non-adult, non relevant comment but it just makes me laugh.

1. 15  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 4:24:03 PM

   So far, no-one has answered the question about IBM's email question, but have posed questions of their own. I'll continue to do my best to answer serious questions.

   @11 one by one: "IBM/Lotus has already started de-emphasizing the Workplace messaging" -- I'm guessing IBM underestimated the backlash from the Notes community of introducing its replacement (Workplace) prematurely. I.e before it was truly ready for a broad audience and before all questions about Notes/Domino migration to Workplace have been addressed. I imagine IBM will be looking for acqusitions in this space (data and application migration and coexistence)

   -- Licensing. Good point and well made by Matt.

   -- Exchange 5.5 -- I truly don't know the percentage, so won't debate it. It's no secret that moving to Exchange means moving to a new Id Management system and that's always a step that is taken with care -- and some companies defer it for a long time. In the long run, a broadly-deployed Id Management system is a company asset (in SSO for example), but it's a hard step to take .. whatever system you eventually go to. Getting off the NAB will be hard too, when that happens.

   -- Calendaring issues. I'm not close enough to the product team to comment with any depth I'm afraid. I haven't personally seen these issues and I am something of an extreem calendar user. I realise that's subjective, though, so apologies if that's a thin answer.

   -- Exchange vs. Sharepoint. I don't know about the people fleeing, really, so I won't comment. Regarding Exchange and Sharepoint, though, there is real insight in Barb's observation. Comparing Notes with Exchange (whoever does it) is "apples and oranges." I'd agree that MSFT in particular tried to do that way too much and as a result, lost some credibility -- at least with people who felt strongly about the breadth of collaborative functions. However, the MSFT Collab platform has broadened a lot in the last three years, with the addition of instant messaging, conferencing, and portal/shared space products. Again from the perspective of a user, the integration between those products, and also with Exchange, Windows and so on, is very good too.

   -- Dave Thompson quote about manageability. Dave runs Exchange. He knows his job, he's a nice guy, he's honest and straightforward. It's worthwhile pointing out MSFT has one of their best dev execs on Exchange (he used to run Windows Server). Exchange is MSFT's email server going forward. I think that's clear.

   Now, it would be good to get my question answered: what is IBM's email strategy?

1. 16  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/8/2005 4:53:27 PM

   Cliff -- Please visit { Link } .

   @Tim - hi Tim! Agreed -- I can think of a few choice Cliffy stories too, but that's more livejournal than edbrill.com, don't you think?

1. 17    | 4/8/2005 4:57:46 PM

   Comment removed at author's request

1. 18  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 4/8/2005 4:58:00 PM

   Cliff, thank you for commenting on each of the quotes, I was not actually looking for a response to each. Rather, my point was that references can be used to get across any point that an author is trying to make. As for IBM's email strategy, I have to go the same route you did with "I'm not close enough to the product team to comment with any depth I'm afraid." but I can point to links like these: { Link }

   { Link }

   “So Notes isn’t being replaced by IBM Workplace; it’s becoming part of IBM Workplace, and it’s here to stay.”

   { Link }

   ftp://ftp.lotus.com/pub/lotusweb/product/domino/protect_and_enrich_white_paper.pdf

1. 19    | 4/8/2005 5:08:25 PM

   Comment removed at author's request

1. 20  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 6:01:53 PM

   @17) Paul wrote: >>> I don't understand how you can say that in the last four years that the .NSF was NOT a strategic database for IBM Lotus, Domino Designer was NOT a strategic development tool, and that the NAB was not a strategic direct(or)y and identity management system. I also don't understand how you can say that Notes is not of strategic value to IBM Lotus. Who are you kidding? Do you honestly expect us to believe that? <<<

   Actually I didn't say any of those things. However, I did say that Notes/Domino's unique database, dev and app platform environment, and directory are not aligned with IBM's Workplace strategy. While Workplace *supports* a Notes app environment, the Workplace app model is Websphere, the tools are Eclipse/Java, and the database is DB2-Cloudscape. It is clearly not NSF, Designer or NAB.

   So, I simply suggested that -- for that reason -- you might conclude Notes/Domino is not a strategic platform going forward.

   It's fine to disagree with that, and I could be wrong. If I am wrong, does that mean that Notes/Domino are IBM's long-term email solution?

   @17 again -- to your last point on av and spyware, I made it clear I don't know for sure (I really don't), and then gave you my personal opinion.

   @18) Thanks. I have read these links. The problem is that they don't get at the real issue. Notes has been a great product and successful for so many years partly because it includes an environment (database, dev tools, pki, directory, etc.) that wasn't present in middleware or platforms for many years. Now those functions are present in middleware and they are different and more pervasive than Notes/Domino. The replacements are often better -- but not always. However, they *are* replacements. There is no getting away from that.

   This means that Notes/Domino applications reflect a different world than exists today. An application developed for Workplace looks nothing like a Notes/Domino application. Different design, different language, different persistence model, different security model. Really, really different.

   So, the question really is: how long will the Notes/Domino model stay around? If the answer is "forever," why Workplace? If it's "a while," then what's the migration plan, and what's the replacement for one of the most widely used Notes app of all: enterprise email.

   I don't expect a definitive answer, but I'd appreciate a discussion that answers some of the tough questions.

   There's a thread on this blog that cites the VB6 to VB .NET transition. It's a similar issue at some level, but the strategy has been clear for over two years. Extended support for VB6 is through 2008, custom support through 2012. You can aurgue about whether that's a good plan or a bad one -- but it's clear.

   The Notes/Domino-Workplace/Websphere story, though, is much less clear and it's orders of magnitude more complex and disruptive. You know how different a Notes/Domino app is from a Websphere app.

   I don't fault IBM for doing what I perceive them doing -- shifting the base. I'm also willing to be wrong. I'd just like to see a little more balanced discussion on it.

   And I sure would like to hear the email strategy :-)

1. 21  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 6:11:06 PM

   @16 So if Notes/Domino *are* the email client/server going forward, what are the database, tools and directory going forward? Will Notes/Domino retain the NSF, Designer and NAB? What's the story for corporate developers and admins?

   Dual stacks in these areas or migration?

   If it's migration, what about customer apps?

1. 22  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 4/8/2005 6:32:23 PM

   Cliff, it's good to see you chiming in. May I say, finally?

   Not to scare you away: Have you considered opening your own blog? Count me in as a subscriber from day one.

1. 23  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 6:58:19 PM

   It's nice of Ed to offer the forum. Thanks, Ed.

   I have considered a blog. However, I type so poorly that I have time to think before I push send ... well, more than I think before I speak, anyway :-)

   That enforced pause makes me realise that I don't have enough to say to support an interesting blog.

   So, I just admire those who do ... and jump in when I just can't stand it any more.

1. 24    | 4/8/2005 7:06:18 PM

   Comment removed at author's request

1. 25  Richard Schwartz http://smokey.rhs.com/web/blog/poweroftheschwartz.nsf | 4/8/2005 7:47:59 PM

   Cliff -- I second Volker's suggestion. I'd most definitely subscribe if you had a blog. You probably don't remember me, as we only met once or twice. I did have a very enjoyable dinner with you, Steve Beckhardt and about a dozen engineers from Westford during a devcon in San Francisco. I recall a great discussion involving the relative merits of the Rolling Stones and Dire Straits. Ah... the good old days :-)

   Now, I'll take on just one of your points...

   <<<While Workplace *supports* a Notes app environment, the Workplace app model is Websphere, the tools are Eclipse/Java, and the database is DB2-Cloudscape. It is clearly not NSF, Designer or NAB.... So, I simply suggested that -- for that reason -- you might conclude Notes/Domino is not a strategic platform going forward.>>>

   What I would like point out is that IBM's "strategic platform" is a concept that is of little real value to people making real-world decisions. The same is true of Microsoft's "strategic platform". I could equally well say that Microsoft's strategic platform is an amalgam of .NET and SQL Server and AD, but then there's also WinFS, and probably a few other strategic elements thrown in as well. So, please tell us... where exactly is Exchange with respect to SQL Server, WinFS and .NET today? Does Exchange's current and/or future committed road map align it exclusively and completely with these elements of Microsoft's strategic platform? Has the server been rewritten in managed code? Is the data store SQL Server? And how does it fit in with WinFS for that matter? And if any (or all of these stories) aren't quite complete as of now, would I be justified in saying that Exchange isn't strategic to Microsoft? Or is it really the case that for Exchange, just like Domino, this whole "strategic platform" thing is a giant red herring that keeps analysts busy but nobody else cares much about?

   Lastly, if you're going to claim that having dates in the VB roadmap somehow make it a more clear plan than IBM's plan for Notes and Domino, I really have to laugh. Nobody trusts Microsoft's dates on strategic issues, especially in the collaboration space, and for very good reason. And frankly, nobody should trust any dates more than 18 months in advance from any software vendor. It's not just Microsof that has a terrible record on making dates for strategic technologies. It's the whole industry. There is just far too much uncertainty in the technology and in the market. Given the huge size of the Notes/Domino customer base, and bearing in mind that IBM already has DB2 support in ND7, that LDAP has been part of Domino for years, that Java and Websphere integration have been part of the Notes/Domino story for years, that the Notes plugin for Workplace is an Eclipse plugin, doesn't a roadmap that includes broad and deep integration with all the elements of IBM's strategic platform make far more sense for both IBM and for IBM's customers than a forced march to new technology due to blind devotion to the idea of a strategic platform and some totally artificial notion of a date for a technology transition?

   -rich

1. 26  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 7:59:33 PM

   @20 Vincent, I must have looked back incorrectly when I wrote the name. Sincere apologies.

   In (20) you *quoted* me correctly. However, in (17) you didn't quote me but gave your own interpretation of what I said -- as if it were a quote. That's a hallmark of spin. So, I repeat: I didn't say that; and I disagree with your interpretation of what I did say.

   I did intend to say this: that I believe IBM's directions on Workplace make clear their positioning of key Notes/Domino technologies. Long term, their strategy is not NSF, Designer or NAB. I laid out a series of reasons for that.

   In my opinion, I believe that is the right decision, but it's not without pain..

   Briefly stated, heres' why I think it's the right decision: it makes little sense to maintain two very different sets of basic system components and application architectures in the long term.

   However, I could be wrong. I'd like to hear an answer to the question and there are only three posibilities: yes, no or don't know.

   If you try to keep both sets (they will be peers) then IBM should explain why and how to choose between them, manage them etc.

   If they pick one set, then they should say that clearly .. and explain how migration from one to the other will occur.

   I found your "clear strategy vs a bad one" question very illuminating. Which strategy does IBM have: unclear or bad?

   Perhaps unintentionally, you explained exactly why I believe a clear strategy is important: because clarity is the only way people can tell if it's good or bad.

   >>> & what absolutely stultifies me <<< LOL. This is a keeper. I am sure you mean my post "stupified" rather than "stultified" you.

   No. I'm not in marketing -- even broadly interpreted. I do have respect for it as a discipline though. I tried doing it once and was not good at it.

   One request: let's keep the posts to the point and well-mannered. Comments like "all I've read here is spin" are really just argumentative ways to degrade the poster, and avoid the points being raised. They really are just spin in their own right.

1. 27  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/8/2005 8:10:51 PM

   Cliff, I'm not really avoiding the question -- I'm happy to have the debate, really. As vowe and Rich said, if you had, for example, written on a blog "What is IBM's messaging strategy?" I would then be able to link to that and add my own answer. I am, after all, responsible for sales of Notes & Domino these days (I know, quite a switch from when I worked for you), and if I can't answer that, no one can. I just didn't like the pretense of discussing it based on the Forbes article, for a variety of reasons which aren't worth discussing for about ten days.

   I have been offline much of today -- that whole work/life balance thing is in my way at the moment. Tomorrow, I'm going to try to fine tune this discussion -- perhaps blog a new entry with the BusinessWeek article, and revise this entry. Depends on the amount of sleep, I think.

1. 28  Cliff Reeves  | 4/8/2005 8:43:55 PM

   @25. Hey, Richard, it is good to hear from you.

   I'll be brief.

   You raised some great points I don't agree with all of them, but here's a quick answer on the main ones.

   -- Exchange store. It's been long-promised on SQL server. It's taking longer than intended. However, Exchange isn't an app platform -- true it has api's but there's no obvious linkage between changing the store and changing the apis. It is however, reasonable for developers who use the Exchange api's to ask "assuming Exchange moves to s single new SQL store ... will my apps break? Yes, no or don't know?" In Notes however, we know the answer: unless IBM does soemthing very radical to DB2, then IBM will maintain two stores or break apps.

   -- When will all MSFT products be written in managed code? When it makes sense to rewrite them, I imagine. However, they are apps. The app platform strategy is clear. Onec again, the right question is: "will apps written to Office apis be compatible going forward?" It's similar to the question on file formats. You have to support th elegacy.

   -- WinFS will make its appearance. However, there is not even the faintest suggestion that it won't run existing apps. It's a fundamental requirement. Parallel question: will existing Notes apps run natively on websphere, or in some C:> equivalent of DOS apps?

   -- The DB2 support in Notes/Domino is just that -- an additional (not aletrantive_ database. Fine for raw data, but of no value for apps. DB2 has none of the application semantics (like replication) of the NSF.

   -- >>> this whole "strategic platform" thing is a giant red herring that keeps analysts busy but nobody else cares much about <<< I disagree. For developers and apps, a strategic platform is more than a concept -- it's the rules of the road. IBM needs to be clear on this: is Notes as an app platform deprecated or not? If yes, then they need a long-term compat story. The equivalent of the compatibiluty environment for DOS apps, if you like. This seems to be what they are developing.

   -- I'm not sure what your point is on dates. The only reason I put them in for VB6 is that MS has been clear. VB .NET is not backward compatible with VB6 There are migration tools and there is a long-term support plan. Clear, simple, and not without pain. Difficult decision. Taken after much thought; communicated clearly.

   -- Your other points on dates seem to be "don't trust software developers .. and distrust MS even more." That strikes me as an obesrvation that is long on polemic; short on real logic. I asked if we could avoid those, early in teh thread, but I don't make the rules.

   That said, it is good to hear from you.

1. 29    | 4/8/2005 8:44:13 PM

   Comment removed at author's request

1. 30  Tim Brown  | 4/8/2005 9:00:52 PM

   Since relevance comes and goes in this thread....

   @13 Awww. Another one? Everywhere I go. I take it you're not the Heisman trophy winner, either?

1. 31  Richard Schwartz http://smokey.rhs.com/web/blog/poweroftheschwartz.nsf | 4/8/2005 10:19:06 PM

   Cliff, I never meant to imply "distrust MS even more".

   I'm not going to go so far as admitting that I was "long on polemic", but yeah... I do plead guilty to a couple of minor potshots at MS with the "Nobody trusts" and the "especially in collaboration" remarks, but please note that I did take care to follow that immediately by saying that meaningless dates are an industry-wide problem. Please trust me that I wouldn't believe dates on an IBM strategic roadmap either, especially if they are more than 18 months out.

   OK... The potshots detracted from my message, so let me try and re-state it. And as for "short on logic", let me endeavor to correct that by laying out the foundation for what I said.

   I was commenting on your remark <<the strategy has been clear for over two years. Extended support for VB6 is through 2008, custom support through 2012. You can aurgue about whether that's a good plan or a bad one -- but it's clear.... The Notes/Domino-Workplace/Websphere story, though, is much less clear, >>>

   I took that juxtaposition (VB plan clear/Notes Domino plan not clear) as an indication that you are claiming that the firm dates in the MS plan for VB provide the clarity that IBM's roadmap lacks. The dates, after all, were the only evidence of clarity that you offered, so that seems a reasonable logical inference to me.

   Even though a support roadmap is a very different animal than a development roadmap, I just can't see any other reason why you would make that juxtaposition, so I latched on to that point. Perhaps I'm wrong about your intent, but please... I was no more short on logic than anyone else here. We're all bringing in a bunch of presumptions that we're not necessarily making clear in our writing. No offense intended, Cliff, but you've got a bunch of presumptions of your own, such as "DB2 has none of the application semantics..." I think you would be quite surprised by the semantics that IBM Lotus' engineers have layered on top of DB2. It's shouldn't really be that surprising, though, because those semantics are layered on top of NSF. They're part of the NSF API, not the NSF file.

   Anyhow, what I'm trying to get across is that I don't think that dates provide significant clarity in a development plan. Not long-term dates, anyhow. Software release dates are, throughout the industry, just too unreliable for IT managers to rely on. Beyond 18 months, they are wishful thinking every bit as often as not. It seems to me that IBM, or at least Lotus, has learned the lesson of avoiding firm dates whenever possible. I would not mind one bit if Microsoft followed that example. I'd like to see both companies impose a total ban on giving any dates for any software technology release that is more than 18 months out.

   Beyond the issue of dates, IMHO IBM does have an extensive roadmap for Notes and Domino, and it is very clear -- even without dates. That roadmap extends out through ND7, 7.5, 8, and 9, with a good chance that an 8.5 will also be in the mix, and I do believe that at least one speaker at Lotusphere mentioned a release 10, too, though I won't swear to it. (As an aside, I think I just answered your question about whether Notes is deprecated as an app platform!)

   The IBM Lotus roadmap is crystal clear about the fact that through all these releases NSF will be there, that all the familiar elements of Notes development will be there, that compatability of applications will be there, that the DB2 and NSF stores will become as near to transparent to app developers as is technically possible, and that a convergence with Workplace will also take place through these releases.

   Now, just extrapolating from recent history, that sequence of releases is going to take 5 to 8 years to come to fruition, maybe more. Would it be nice to have finer-grained detail about exactly what new features will be in each release and when, and exactly when various phases of convergence with the Workplace architecture will take place? Sure it would be nice, but I contend that prudent IT managers ought not to develop plans based on any fine-grained information more than one major release in the future. What would be the point? At best there's a 50/50 chance that any date beyond 18 months will be hit on time with the promised functionality.

   BTW: Lotus is now releasing the Notes plugin for the Workplace Rich Client before they had said they would, and the ripple effect in terms of how other work will be reprioritized as a result are potentially huge! That's another great reason to distrust long-term dates. It's not just the uncertainties and failures that make dates such a minefield. Sometimes IBM's engineers pull off miracles. I'm sure that yours do, too.

   -rich

1. 32  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 4/8/2005 10:21:54 PM

   @30 The sad thing is I know both of you. I can assure you the first Tim with no middle E did not win a Heisman trophy.

   Personally I think Microsoft is really really hoping that Workplace/DB2 are the strategic direction. It will be much easier for them to compete against than the Domino because they will be able to argue they have a product in every category that Workplace claims to have. How they all integrate together can be brushed over, but in the all important first impression column fodder battles, they will look at least identical to each others offerings.

   Then comes the all important question for customers, how does it integrate with Office? Even if you're ten times better than what MS does in that area, customers will 90% of the time not believe that Lotus/IBM or anyone else for that matter could possibly have done as good a job as MS even though that is often a wrong perception.

   My personal confusion around Workplace is why does it exist at all? Shouldn't Websphere Portal be the be all and end all portal with Workplace being pure portals that plug into that? Should a customer go with a Workplace portal or a Websphere Portal, should a customer go with a Workplace email or a Domino email, should a cusotmer go for a Workplace IM system or a Domino based Sametime one, choices are good, but when they are from the same vendor customers often get very very confused, and not every customer attended Lotusphere to hear it all clearly.

1. 33  Tony Cocks http://www.tonycocks.com | 4/9/2005 2:12:10 AM

   Carls final point is a valid as when I made a few posts back. History is not kind to companies offing teo products that do the samething, even more so with strategic tools like email.

   Didn't a recent Forbes article also highlight this?

   Having been at Lotus when the internal debate started about Websphere based mail vs Domino based mail it seems the situation isn't any clearer. Positioning Domino as part of Workplace causes further confusion...well it does for me and some Domino customers I've spoken too!

   Oh...hello Cliff! :o)

1. 34  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 4/9/2005 3:48:41 AM

   > I have considered a blog. However, I type so poorly

   Cliff, for someone who types so poorly you have typed a lot today. One week worth of blog entries. According to CBO Scoble Microsoft is encouraging employees to blog. I'd suggest you give it another thought.

1. 35  Cliff Reeves  | 4/9/2005 3:55:37 AM

   @29. Vincent. Stultify and stupefy are both verbs. In England, Ireland and the US. My point was, and still is, that maybe you used the wrong one.

   You wrote: " ... & what absolutely stultifies me ..."

   I used define: at Google on both words, but I think most English dictionaries (and English speakers) agree on the difference.

   Stultify:

   1) to render useless or futile; cripple; to cause to appear foolish or ridiculous

   2) prove to be of unsound mind or demonstrate someone's incompetence

   3) cripple: deprive of strength or efficiency; make useless or worthless

   Stupefy:

   1) perplex: be a mystery or bewildering to

   2) stun: make senseless or dizzy by or, as if by a blow

   Repeating your statement: " ... & what absolutely stultifies me ..."

   You may have meant "stupefy." I don't want to insist, though. It's entirely your call which one you choose.

1. 36  Ben Poole http://www.benpoole.com | 4/9/2005 4:25:35 AM

   In my experience, on-line arguments are done once we get down to pointing out errors (or otherwise) of grammar, spelling, etc. ;o)

1. 37  Cliff Reeves  | 4/9/2005 4:54:39 AM

   This is a great thread. Old friends. Real debate.

   @27) Richard >>> The IBM Lotus roadmap is crystal clear about the fact that through all these releases NSF will be there, that all the familiar elements of Notes development will be there, that compatability of applications will be there, that the DB2 and NSF stores will become as near to transparent to app developers as is technically possible, and that a convergence with Workplace will also take place through these releases. <<<

   I think no-one does commitment like IBM. Once they have shipped a product -- even if they change direction, -- they will support people who have used it. Don't mistake that for faint praise. It's a great and expensive (for IBM) attribute. NO question.

   The key point is here: " ... compatability of applications will be there, that the DB2 and NSF stores will become as near to transparent to app developers as is technically possible, and that a convergence with Workplace will also take place ... "

   Given that is the whole development architecture of Notes/Domino you are talking about, and Workplace has already been announced, then I'd be asking "how and when?"

   This isn't some release-to-release change where backward compat can be more or less assumed. This is a fundamental change in platform.

   It's also not a future thing that whose development team can be told "make sure you don't break the Notes/Domino apps."

   It's here now, and it's called Workplace, and it's based on Eclipse, Java, Websphere, Websphere/SecureWay Directory Server, Websphere Portal Server, DB2, and Cloudscape. It's definitely not Lotuscript, Domino Designer, and NSFs. They are not the development tools for Workplace. Notes is in a compat box.

   Again, this is not a question for eight or nine years out. It's a question that is today because Workplace is now IBM's Collaboration platform.

   I think that's a situation in which you might be asking for a few more details to back up the assertion that " ... compatability of applications will be there ..."

   @32 Carl, I'm not sure which strategy favours IBM (or MSFT come to that) more: two collab platforms, or one. Truly, I'm not sure. The only reason I entered this discussion is that it's not clear which is true, and I saw the discussion being swept under the carpet.

   I will tell you that I believe the answer is one platform -Workplace. IBM cannot afford to maintain or support two sets of applicaton infrastructure.

   Workplace, though, is not yet positioned or offered for broad enterprise adoption, and there's no public data on the uptake. However, whether Workplace is successful or not, Notes/Domino is not the fallback plan. If I were at IBM (and obviously I'm not so you can certainly discount this opinion) I'd be in favour of clarity:

   1) Long term plan is Workplace

   2) We'll support Notes/Domino apps as long as necessary .. even beyond reason .. because we are IBM.

   3) We'll work on interop and migration tools. Workplace/Notes 7 interop is pretty good already. [watch for acquistion of migration tools soon]

   4) We'll probably develop some tools along the lines of Designer/Lotuscript so not everyone has to learn Java

   5) Timeframe is ...

   I'd say right now, the silence on this point is deafening.

   Now, the real weakness in IBM's plan is this:

   -- If they keep two infrastructures long term, they will take on extra costs and divide their developer market.

   -- if they move to a single infrastructure, then they have to figure out an enterprise email strategy. They will also lose some Notes/Domino customers.

   It's a tough problem, I think. If I'm right, it may explain IBM's silence and imprecision on this very obvious and present dilemma.

   Carl and Richard. Super nice to be chatting with you.

1. 38  Cliff Reeves  | 4/9/2005 5:01:45 AM

   @36) Ben, you are right. I couldn't help myself and I'm not proud of it.

1. 39  Cliff Reeves  | 4/9/2005 5:21:27 AM

   @31) Richard >>> I took that juxtaposition (VB plan clear/Notes Domino plan not clear) as an indication that you are claiming that the firm dates in the MS plan for VB provide the clarity that IBM's roadmap lacks. The dates, after all, were the only evidence of clarity that you offered, so that seems a reasonable logical inference to me. <<<

   I didn't restate the rest of the VB6-VB.Net point because it was in Chris Reckling's thread. Key point is that VB .NET is a replacement for VB6 and is not backward compatible.

   I was making an analogy with Workplace and Notes/Domino.

   Two points are important:

   1) replacement/migration without compatibility is always painful (for VB6, or Notes, developers).

   2) Clarity and long-term support are vital.

   In the VB6 case, the replacement is clear, migration tools are in place, and the support plan is defined. In the Notes/Domino case -- which is much more difficult -- none of these is clear.

   It's not that IBM is alwsy stupid and MSFT always smart. I don't believe that. I brought it up because Chrsi Reckling made the point that VB .NEt was a "rip and replace" for VB6. That's the kind of expression that people will usein these situations. It goes with the territory, and it's not entirely unjustified.

   It just seemed a useful parallel to the Notes/Domino and Workplace situation, where the direction is really unclear.

1. 40  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 4/9/2005 7:59:12 AM

   Manual trackback: { Link }

1. 41  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 4/9/2005 7:59:30 AM

   Manual trackback: { Link }

1. 42  John Willemse http://www.badkey.com/ | 4/9/2005 9:26:10 AM

   Ed,

   Can you aslo comment on IBM In Denial Over Lotus Notes. Forbes.com.

   [Link removed]

1. 43  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/9/2005 9:45:37 AM

   John, no offense, but I've already said what I have to say publicly about it. If you need more texture, contact me offline.

1. 44  Nathan T. Freeman  | 4/10/2005 3:05:50 AM

   "It's here now, and it's called Workplace, and it's based on Eclipse, Java, Websphere, Websphere/SecureWay Directory Server, Websphere Portal Server, DB2, and Cloudscape. It's definitely not Lotuscript, Domino Designer, and NSFs. They are not the development tools for Workplace. Notes is in a compat box."

   I just love it when Microsoft explains to us what IBM's plan is. Not their published plan, of course, which is that Notes/Domino is integral to the Workplace strategy and that there will be convergence between the product lines. No no. It's the "secret plan." The "inside scoop" about what's really going on in Steve Mills' head and the outcome of all the IBM corporate politics. Never mind that the Workplace Designer team is almost entirely an outgrowth of the Notes Designer team. Never mind the already-demonstrated cross-compatibility. Never mind the shipping code and the demo code that show how all this works.

   Forget all that. Microsoft has a few guys that worked at Westford a couple of years ago, and they've got the REAL SCOOP. If you listen to IBM, you'll be duped. Don't. Trust your friends at Microsoft.

   Cliff, IBM's made this damn clear: Notes is Workplace. Workplace is Notes. The spice is the worm. And they've committed to long-term support for Notes. To a Designer for Eclipse that's a direct outgrowth of Domino Designer. Direct Lotuscript support in Eclipse is up in the air, but plug-in compatibility for existing LS has already been shown.

   It's already been said. Months ago. There is no silence on this point. Ed and Alan have pointed you to it. So either you aren't reading it, or you're being disingenuous. Pick one.

1. 45  Cliff Reeves  | 4/10/2005 10:43:25 PM

   @44) Nathan, you wrote >>> IBM's made this damn clear: Notes is Workplace. Workplace is Notes. The spice is the worm <<<

   This really doesn't address the facts.

   I'll restate the facts:

   1) IBM has two current and incompatible development platforms for writers of collab apps. The key diffs are directory, dev language, and application structure. The last is the most extreme. If you are a Notes dev, you know the details here.

   And I'll restate the question, too: Is it a) both exist forever, or b) migration from one to the other or c) some approach whereby they become the same platform?

   If it's (a)when should developers use which?

   If it's (b)when will tools be available?

   If it's (c) what are the details? How and when?

   These products (Notes and Workplace) are both in the marketplace, so it's easy to see the differences, and not unreasonable to expect these questions to be answered.

   Nathan wrote: >>> Microsoft has a few guys that worked at Westford a couple of years ago, and they've got the REAL SCOOP <<<

   I am not trading on that, Nathan. Ed, and now you, brought it up. Not me.

   Nathan wrote: >>> they've committed to long-term support for Notes <<< You are correct. I made that point a few times.

   Nathan wrote: >>> If you listen to IBM, you'll be duped. Don't. Trust your friends at Microsoft.<<< I didn't say this or anything like it. FYI, I have a great deal of respect for IBM as a company and for the people who work there. I don't think they are infallible, though. I think the discussion woudl bea whole more valuable if we stopped characterising companies -- and people, come to that -- as evil or stupid.

   I'll repeat a request I made early in the thread:

   Cliff wrote: >>> A small request: let's keep the discussion adult and thoughtful. Let's ignore kool-aid references, and statements "company x is evil and its products are bad." <<<

   I don't make the rules, but most contributors kept to that. I think that doing so kept the discussion useful. I don't think it's going to be useful to respond next time to posts that are largely emotional.

   Nathan wrote: >>> It's already been said. Months ago. There is no silence on this point. Ed and Alan have pointed you to it. So either you aren't reading it, or you're being disingenuous. Pick one. <<< Those are logical choices (not resading or disingeouous) if the questions had in fact been answered. I did read and re-read carefully. I did not see the answers. If you have the facst, then please repeat thme so everyone can assess them.

   Now, I do think it's worth arguing the points I raised. The platform issues and the questions are clear. It would be good if the answers were too.

1. 46  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/10/2005 11:23:37 PM

   @45: The answer to your question from this multiple choice is "C" and has been thoroughly documented in all the tools mentioned above. Like trying to ask a Microsoft consultant which tools to build an application with (VS.NET, InfoPath, VBA, Access, Foxpro, ADO/CDO, hmm, what else can I throw in here), the answer is not a single sound bite. So I'm going to move on.

   If you are going to assert that the volume of white papers, presentations, articles, and analyst reports that correlate the clarity and confidence that the market has in Workplace (inclusive of Lotus) today doesn't cut it, this discussion is closed.

1. 47  Cliff Reeves  | 4/11/2005 12:19:23 AM

   @46)Ed, I'm just asking the big questions about the basics: languages, directory, database, application model.

   These questions haven't been answered. If they are that easy to answer, then how come no-one answers them?

   I've been completely honest with you. The reason I am asking is not because I believe IBM or its people to be stupid or dishonest. I do believe they have made a strategic mistake -- releasing and evangelism Workplace befoer they have these questions answered.

   I cannot see any IBM plan that moves Notes or Workplace developers to a converged platform. I have concluded that Notes/Domino as a dev platform is deprecated, for three reasons:

   1) because the Workplace and Notes/Domino platforms are so different at the fundamental levels that convergence is hard to imagine. I coud be wrong here. Just anser the big questions.

   2) Convergence is harder still because both platforms are now in market. How will they both change, stay competitive, and maintain backward compatibility with their existing applications?

   3) IBM's clear developer strategy is Eclipse, Java, Websphere, Websphere Portal Server, DB2, Cloudscape, etc. Workplace is based on those pillars. This is clear in the IWCT and Workplace white papers.

   What I think will happen is that Notes/Domino apps will continue in a compatibility box, but most Notes applications won't move to Worekplace without being rewritten.

   That's a strategy with good precedents (IBM1401 apps still run in Z-series systems, C:> DOS apps still run in Win XP). However, thsi kind of compatibilty does make it clear which platform is deprecated.

   There are a couple of resons that's problematic:

   1) Workplace is't yet a replacement. There's a risk of loing Notes users. I do believe IBM is not being straightforward here. I realize that's judgmental but I think it's backed up by the facts.

   2) Email is the the single Notes app that the majority of Notes/Domino users depend on. If Notes is deprecated, what does the future IBM email system (client and server) look like? What's its database, directory, and programming environment? In this case, I think IBM needs an acquisition.

   Ed, you haven't answered the questions. Not even close.

   In the circumstances, closing the thread down may be the best way to avoid answering them.

   I do think it will give everyone the answers to my questions, though :-)

1. 48  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/11/2005 12:42:50 AM

   OK, let's be really clear then.

   IBM Workplace Collaborative Services isn't yet a replacement. Correct. But since Notes is NOT depreciated, with the best release of Notes ever coming next quarter, what's the difference? You seem to think Notes is dead, Cliff, in some fundamental way, but you are wrong. Why else would IBM be spending the time/money/effort to build a major release, with huge new features like optional DB2 support, Web Services, and Domino Domain Monitor? That doesn't sound like a "deprecated" product to me. A "maintenance mode" product gets ten new features and calls it a day.

   The model is to integrate Domino apps into WCS through things like the Domino Application Portlet, LDAP, etc. On the client side, the Notes plug-in is far more than a compatibility box. It takes on all the characteristics of the Workplace client technology -- and will have enhanced features from release to release starting with 7.5 and beyond. Again, Notes continues just as it is now -- except that at that point, Notes will be federated away from just being a proprietary Domino client, and will consume WSDL apps, portlets, etc. This increases the value of the Notes investment for all IBM Lotus customers, keeping them current with technology and evolving the product as has been done countless times before. At that point, Notes can consume Workplace Collaborative Services -- i.e. Workplace Documents, putting full-featured editors into the Notes environment as well. All sounds like a nice upgrade path, not a rip-and-replace migration. At some point, will some customers turn off certain Domino services and replace them with Workplace Collaborative Services? Perhaps. But as far as the eye can see, there's no requirement to do so.

   On your second question, to me, it's a spurious question. Notes mail is going to continue for a long time to come, in its current form. IBM has said that in the 8.0 timeframe, it will be possible for Domino to use SMTP and routing services from Workplace Collaborative Services, but the mail store/security model/etc. would remain Domino/Notes (just like is happening in 7.0 with the optional DB2 support). Workplace's messaging client will be able to front-end either Notes/Domino databases or WCS messaging mailboxes. The database will be either DB2 or NSF. So, I'm really missing what acquisition is needed.

   As for programming model, have you studied Workplace Designer at all? A number of your questions are addressed by that product, now in beta. The models stay the same, the skills stay the same, the back-ends are different. But that does NOT mean that application migration is required, or even attractive to most organizations. Developers will build on the WCS back-end when the tools are shipping -- but the tools will be similar enough that the skills apply regardless of backend. Again, not a migration, and there is no need for Notes applications to "move to Workplace".

   The reason I've not engaged in a detailed answer until now is that you are asking questions that are really FUD-based. That was Nathan's point. We've addressed these questions in public, posted, printed materials. I didn't just go create new answers to anything in order to respond to you. It's all what we talked about at Lotusphere, what the papers cover, and what our executives and product managers are telling customers, analysts, and the press. A number of your colleagues were at Lotusphere -- did they not get this straight in bringing back their reports? Maybe they need better collaboration tools. :)

1. 49  Nathan T. Freeman  | 4/11/2005 3:35:15 AM

   @47... Cliff says "Ed, I'm just asking the big questions about the basics: languages, directory, database, application model.

   These questions haven't been answered. If they are that easy to answer, then how come no-one answers them?"

   ...and then says "3) IBM's clear developer strategy is Eclipse, Java, Websphere, Websphere Portal Server, DB2, Cloudscape, etc. Workplace is based on those pillars. This is clear in the IWCT and Workplace white papers."

   Sounds to me, Cliff, like you think you've already answered these questions. So why do you keep asking them? You say that IBM hasn't answer the language/directory/database question, and then you state "IBM's clear developer strategy."

   That's why I say you're being disingenuous. You claim that IBM doesn't have answers, and then you PROVIDE answers that you say IBM isn't giving. That is shady rhetorical technique.

   I'm not emotional about this, and I hardly called Microsoft "evil." But I do think you're engaging in a Radicati-style misdirection argument. When one party refuses to acknowledge the response coming from the other party, intelligent and reasonable discussion is impossible. If you're not going to acknowledge that IBM has made it clear that they're going to converge these two initially incompatible collaborative models into a cohesive whole that's called "Workplace," then what's the point in continuing to talk? If you haven't heard *that* message yet, you're clearly going to close your ears to all the other ones.

   By the way: "If you are a Notes dev, you know the details here." Yeah, I have some experience in Notes development. Just a bit. :)

1. 50  Cliff Reeves  | 4/11/2005 8:35:24 AM

   @49) Nathan, you wrote >>> IBM has made it clear that they're going to converge these two initially incompatible collaborative models into a cohesive whole that's called "Workplace," <<<

   I didn't ask that question. I observed that it looked hard to do and asked how and when they would do that. As I pointed out, they are both now in users hands. It's tough to converge two such incompatible bases, yet keep them competitive and backward compatible with their installed bases.

   I also suggested that IBM's approach is a compat box for Notes. That's the usual approach when one technology replaces another.

   Nathan, you haven't answered a single question. You just accused me of rhetoric and being disingenous. Let's look at those points.

   I did give IBM credit for a clear developer strategy across Websphere and their Collab platform -- Workplace. It's hardly rhetorical to ask questions about the incompatible and older alternative - Notes.

   But disingenuous? That suggests I'm wilfully pretending not to know the facts. I don't think that's accurate. Truts me, I haven't seen them, and I've looked and read everything I can find and and everything I have been sent.

   Nathan, I am not trying to provoke you, but you should answer questions rather than just attack the questioner.

   You might not know them. I suspect no-one does. However, I'm willing to be wrong on that. A good number of analysts and a good number of the Notes community read this blog, and so I would have expected that if the details I was asking for were available, then they would have jumped in and corrected me.

   Ed has at least taken a stab at that in (49). so I'll read that and respond directly.

1. 51  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 4/11/2005 8:41:38 AM

   "It's tough to converge two such incompatible bases, yet keep them competitive and backward compatible with their installed bases." that seems to be the point where your opinion differs from IBM's. IBM does not think of "Domino" and "Workplace" as incompatible bases. Look at the work being done with NSFs running in the Workplace Rich Client, do you not beleive what you are seeing there? How about the SIP gateway that allows users to instant message with people in both a "Sametime-based" IM envoronment and a "Workplace-based" one? I guess this is where IBM and MS differ, IBM does think the two systems can be competitive and backwards compatible.

1. 52  Cliff Reeves  | 4/11/2005 9:27:18 AM

   @51) Alan, there is a difference between a self-contained compatibility box (like Notes running in IWCT) and a converged base. Specifically, in that situation, the Notes app is a Notes app, with its own database, programming language, directory, etc.

   This is how -- as I mentioned before-- 1401 apps run in Z-Series and DOS apps run in Windows. It's SOP.

   That's how incompatible systems run.

   And in every case I have seen, it's the deprecated system running inside the replacement. Like Notes in IWCT.

1. 53  Nathan T. Freeman  | 4/11/2005 9:43:37 AM

   "Nathan, you haven't answered a single question."

   You're right. Because the questions are already answered by Ed and Alan, both directly, and in their references. You just keep saying that they haven't been answered.

   This is the point in the courtroom drama where opposing counsel objects.

   If you can't be bothered to notice statements like Ken Bisconti's "Notes will be the premier Workplace client" then what are we talking about?

   "Truts me, I haven't seen them, and I've looked and read everything I can find and and everything I have been sent."

   Then why is it not clear to you how IBM is integrating, say, Notes and DB2? Rich has answered quite clearly about the relationship between DB2 and the NSF API, and you still ask the question about databases? Why?

   By the way, the whole "what's the language" question is really ridiculous, particularly from an ex-Loti. Since when has Notes EVER been about a single language? There is no ONE LANGUAGE that's the cornerstone here. There never has been, and hopefully never will be.

   Look, if you don't like IBM's Workplace strategy, and you think it has holes, that's one thing. That's a perfectly reasonable concern, and I'm quite sure you're not the only one that has it. (I have a number of concerns myself.) But to say that IBM hasn't articulated what they're doing, or to claim that they're still stuck in the "websphere takes over everything" mold is sooooo 2003.

1. 54  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 4/11/2005 9:45:18 AM

   @52. OK my head is starting to hurt. There is no self contained compatibility box. As Ed has already mentioned, as do the links we started this whole conversation with, and the news at Lotusphere... Notes in WCT is going to be MUCH more than that. It will enable the use of things like Workplace editors, document management, IM integration, etc. You seem fixated on trying to find a way to prove the "Notes is going away" FUD that MS likes to tell our customers. That is simply not true. I really don't know a way to make it clearer than that. Notes and Domino are getting better and better. More powerful. More flexible. More OS options. I'm not sure why you don't believe that. Anyway, I don't work in Lotus marketing anymore, so I'm done weighing in on the marketing story. If you want to learn about Business Partner enablement (my current job) check out PartnerWorld { Link } and the Virtual Innovation Center { Link }

1. 55  Cliff Reeves  | 4/11/2005 12:11:00 PM

   @48) Ed, thanks for the response, and thanks also for hosting a blog which at least tolerates people who disagree with you. My hat's off to you for that.

   Your response is a good one. Thanks also for that.

   What I got out of it is four points:

   1) that IBM will do a lot of sensible integration between the environments (and IWCT hosting Notes apps is sensible integration IMHO)

   2) The two architectures remain separate. In other words, there's a Notes app model and a Websphere model (with some levels of integration between them) with no major architectural convergence. That's not a criticism, btw.

   3) Notes/Domino will remain a supported environment for the long term. No end in sight.

   I hope that's a fair restatement.

   You specifically called out the following integration points:

   "Notes .... will consume WSDL apps, portlets, etc"

   "[Notes will] consume Workplace Collaborative Services -- i.e. Workplace Documents, putting full-featured editors into the Notes environment "

   "in the 8.0 timeframe, it will be possible for Domino to use SMTP and routing services from Workplace Collaborative Services"

   "Workplace's messaging client will be able to front-end either Notes/Domino databases or WCS messaging mailboxes"

   These all fall into the "sensible integration" category.

   You also said "the mail store/security model/etc. would remain Domino/Notes (just like is happening in 7.0 with the optional DB2 support)."

   This really says very clearly that IBM is pursuing two parallel app platform paths with sensible component-level integration between them. There's no fundamental convergence. This is again not a criticism, but long term there are still:

   -- two databases;

   -- two security systems,

   -- two directories, and

   -- two programming models. BTW ... Workplace designer does not abstract a designer from the key areas that distinguish Notes from Workplace. Areas like field level security, and replication for example. The things that makea Notes application totally unique (and valuable).

   So, here's the next question: how should a developer who knows neither system decide which one to use?

   Cliff

1. 56  Cliff Reeves  | 4/11/2005 12:25:23 PM

   @54) Alan.

   Your post didn't provide any facts.

   I am sorry your head hurts. Maybe that's because it's hard when you have to answer questions.

1. 57  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/11/2005 12:35:06 PM

   Alright, Cliff, we're done. Unfortunately, I can't turn off a discussion thread in DominoBlog without all the comments disappearing.

   Per my earlier comment, I've removed the subsequent comments in this thread. I'll be doing the same with subsequent ones. This discussion just got too far out of hand.