Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Henry Ferlauto http://www.geniusinside.com | 12/6/2006 8:14:33 AM

   Awesome!

   Any hopes of there ever being connectivity between Sametime & Skype?

1. 2  Kieren Johnson http://www.creata.com | 12/6/2006 8:39:09 AM

   Good news but can you fix the link please?

   @1 AFAIK Skype uses its own proprietary protocol that is not compatible with SIP or XMPP which makes it very unlikely that any other IM client will connect to it.

1. 3  Stu Leonard  | 12/6/2006 9:06:32 AM

   Can the "Sametime Gateway" be installed on your existing Sametime Server? Or does a 2nd server have to be installed?

1. 4  Stu Leonard  | 12/6/2006 9:10:00 AM

   On that note... I just want to lotus.com to try and learn more on the above, and I can't even find a Sametime product page. I am sure it is there, though surfing through Products by Cateogry and by A-Z isn't getting me anywhere.

   I am lost in something called Collboration Express, and I am scared... :)

1. 5  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/6/2006 9:32:12 AM

   @2 link fixed.

   @4 you need to click on the "S" for Sametime

   { Link }

1. 6  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/6/2006 9:42:24 AM

   >> Can the "Sametime Gateway" be installed on your existing Sametime Server?

   Stu, that is the wrong question to ask. You need to ask "how many additional servers do I need".

   The gateway is a WebSphere application which needs WAS and an existing DB2 server. WAS and the appropriate liceneses come with the gateway.

1. 7  Adam Gartenberg http://www.adamgartenberg.com | 12/6/2006 10:05:16 AM

   @4 You can also find a direct link at { Link }

1. 8  Rob Novak http://www.LotusRockStar.com | 12/6/2006 11:12:03 AM

   Or easier - lotus.com/sametime

   @Volker and everybody - I figured it'd install Cloudscape for a simple one-server install. Not true?

1. 9  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 12/6/2006 11:17:03 AM

   @6 LOL

   @8 Sadly not true. You need a specific version of DB2 and Websphere with the correct fixpacks and hotfixes installed...

1. 10  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 12/6/2006 11:18:53 AM

   I'm not sure about Mr Rhodin's statement being factually true...

   "IBM is the first major enterprise vendor to use computing standards to connect over 70 percent of the worldwide instant messaging user base," he said.

   Good if people believe it though.

1. 11  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net/ | 12/6/2006 11:25:50 AM

   @4 @5 @7 or click "Instant messaging, Web conferencing and team collaboration" under "What we sell" on the Lotus.com home page.

1. 12  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/6/2006 11:32:07 AM

   May I suggest a new certification? "Principal Certified IBM Website Navigator"

1. 13  Chris Miller http://www.IdoNotes.com | 12/6/2006 12:33:37 PM

   @8 - Cloudscape is not an option, read my posting from Nov real quick...

   { Link }

1. 14  Gerry Shappell  | 12/6/2006 12:37:11 PM

   @6 - Wow. I hadn't had a chance to read about the RTC Gateway and was unaware of this requirement. Seems a bit illogical unless there was some type of technical obstruction. I just don't see BP's asking IBM for this enhancement and saying "oh by the way, we want to install the gateway on a different server, potentially a different platform, and add the requirement of DB2." The only thing I can imagine (without having read the documentation) is that it was designed this way due to security? I will make an attempt this week to read the supporting documentation to fully understand the architecture.

1. 15  Craig Wiseman  | 12/6/2006 12:47:08 PM

   Not just WAS & DB2, but a very specific version of DB2. This gateway can not POSSIBLY be that complex that it requires that.

   Obviously some design decisions need to be reconsidered. WAS maybe (CE!), but it's hard to comprehend why it couldn't be designed to run with a domino .nsf backed for data storage.

   That would make it waaaay more useful for IBM's SMB customers.

1. 16  Chris Miller http://www.IdoNotes.com | 12/6/2006 12:58:54 PM

   @14 & 15 - You have to go outside of the mindset that everyone that runs Sametime runs Domino is the issue. Now choosing a specific flavor of DB2 usually goes back to testing also. There is also specific WAS versions, plus updates plus iFixes that must be deployed on top of that. The DB2 is the easy part when using the express version. You could also use a full production version you already have in place. Adding Cloudscape does not address what support enterprises have internally for database administration, whether they choose Cloudscape, SQL or DB2. It is also about scaling and clustering. Cloudscape eliminates that possibility

1. 17  Gerry Shappell  | 12/6/2006 1:27:24 PM

   @16 - I thought of that as well but convinced myself that the current majority of Sametime deployments are on Domino. I think it's a great idea to allow for organizations that are not on Domino to have this setup... However, why not have two different configurations? One organization I was with had a hard enough time coming up with another box for Sametime, I can only imagine their reaction when they are told of the requirements for the RTC Gateway.

1. 18  Nathan T. Freeman http://www.openntf.org/nathan/escape.nsf | 12/6/2006 1:39:23 PM

   @15 - I'm pretty sure this product wasn't targetted for IBM's SMB customers, who are more likely to simply have AIM and YAHOO accounts for their users.

   I mean, IBM's basically providing an IM proxy service here, and it needs two enterprise-scale servers in place to do what my Trillian { Link } client does for free in < 8MB of RAM.

   It's a cool product idea with an absolutely baffling implementation approach. But I suppose if it's out there for the sake of major financial firms getting some control over their IM usage and record retention requirements, then it'll do what they need!

1. 19  David Bell  | 12/6/2006 2:00:18 PM

   @18 - why baffling ?

   It's built on WAS / DB2 as Chris says, because there are a whole lot of customers out there who want / need IM but do not have a Domino backend.

   And it's not just financial firms who need compliance and control. I know you know that.

   So, if you have thousands of users and you need to *manage* the usage, how else would you implement this other than a centralized server architecture on a scalable platform ?

1. 20  Dennis Ellison  | 12/6/2006 2:01:31 PM

   Too complex and too resource intensive for our needs...definitely focused on large enterprises only.

1. 21  Nathan T. Freeman http://www.openntf.org/nathan/escape.nsf | 12/6/2006 2:08:29 PM

   @19 - Y'know, if I consider the web delivery model for Sametime, then yeah... I have to take "baffling" back. Fair enough. Mostly before I was thinking "what is it that needs to be in a big database, and what is it that needs a web application server?"

   And the answer is "compliance records and all that meeting planning stuff that goes beyond IM, respectively."

   So, mea culpa.... it was a short-sighted remark on my part.

1. 22  Nathan T. Freeman http://www.openntf.org/nathan/escape.nsf | 12/6/2006 2:10:25 PM

   Follow-up: I guess my knee-jerk reaction comes from the desire to see something as useful as the RTC Gateway that is feasible to implement for non-Fortune 1000 companies. My firm runs IBM infrastructures as an outsourcing business, but the requirements for this stuff just don't make it worth the effort yet. :(

1. 23  Craig Wiseman  | 12/6/2006 2:12:25 PM

   @16 - That's an interesting approach to take: the (vast?) majority of my customers are running Domino & sametime, so let's craft a add-on to our product that -> requires <- a whole new infrastructure to support it?

   It seems like it could run with a Domino backend for lower-end use and the highly scalable DB2 backed for large customers.

   You may not have noted that I didn't quible with WAS, but gosh - surely if it was carefully designed, WAS CE running in conjunction with DOmino could serve well for SMBs?

1. 24  Bruce Elgort http://www.TakingNotesPodcast.com | 12/6/2006 2:29:31 PM

   Maybe somebody can host such a gateway and not require customers to install it locally. Chris?

1. 25  Craig Wiseman  | 12/6/2006 2:37:45 PM

   @24 - Hmmmm, interesting thought....

1. 26  Henning Heinz  | 12/6/2006 2:44:47 PM

   Although not officially confirmed, the current major release is considered to be the last version of Sametime that runs on top of Domino ( see { Link } ).

   If that is the case, running the gateway on what is considered to be the next architecture for Sametime ( "standards-based middleware" )makes sense.

   Unfortunately commercial IM does not fly in my local market here.

1. 27  Chris Miller http://www.IdoNotes.com | 12/6/2006 2:53:33 PM

   @18 - Nathan you are partially right, as we both run Trillian. However, Trillian by no means does what RTC does in terms of moving your enterprise (email) name to the world instead of some online name. plus the control of who can communicate to the outside over the public infrastructures. One other piece is missing, the abiltiy for companies to all subscribe to the Clearinghouse and see each other as your company (email) name. Makes it easier to find people too.

   @23 - After our experience being one of the partners for Collaboration University { Link } university we saw the enterprises running Sametime and Quickplace without Domino.

   Yes, the majority do run Domino, and may just the free chat component.

   @24 - interesting theory but the RTC only allows one local community, the rest must be SIP which means run your own RTC or older Sametime SIP gateway unfortunately

   @ no one in particular - We have been live with the RTC (Sametime) Gateway for a while now. It is not the best SMB solution as a whole

1. 28  David Bell  | 12/6/2006 3:02:44 PM

   @23 - yes we could have built it for both infrastructures.

   But once again, we'd be in the "which platform should I use" camp. Some would be glad of choice, others would not.

   At least this way, it is one platform, that can be leveraged by customers regardless of existing infrastructure.

1. 29  Ben Poole http://benpoole.com | 12/6/2006 3:11:10 PM

   @23: "It seems like it could run with a Domino backend for lower-end use and the highly scalable DB2 backed for large customers."

   Well, I guess it *could*, but who in IBM is going to write the RTC stuff twice? Once for Domino, once for WAS?

   (Of course, if Gartner was a reality, you'd have a common JSP base for such a thing between the two platforms... * cough * )

   :-D

1. 30  Craig Wiseman  | 12/6/2006 3:35:06 PM

   @29 - I'm not suggesting they write it twice (hence being ok if it ran on WAS CE), I'm suggesting that they craft the data storage logic so it could write to either Domino or DB2. DB2 stores XML well, Domino stores XML well. This point becomes significant to me in a broader context than just the RTC. Obviously, IBM is constructing a number of new software initiatives that (in my tiny mind) would beneft from the Domino datastore on the SMB end and DB2 on the high end. Activity Explorer, for instance....

1. 31  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 12/6/2006 4:04:04 PM

   @30 I imagine we will see this with more and more products from IBM, where IBM is driving us to use more and more WAS/DB2 to get additional functionality added to Domino.

   Activity explorer for example.

   From what most people consider SMB (IBM SMB is actually a big ocmpany to most of us) point of view, it's a shame. As having everything run in the same infrastructure of Domino with relatively speaking quite low hardware requirements is a godsend. Sadly IBM has never been very good at promoting the true values fo Domino/Notes to the Very small business. Which I personaly think is a great opportunity untapped by them.

1. 32  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/6/2006 4:09:28 PM

   Year after year I have been briefed by IBM over new SMB initiatives. Guess what happened.

   My conclusion: if you ask IBM for a spoon, you get one from caterpillar.

1. 33  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/6/2006 4:13:22 PM

   Before this gets too far out of hand, I will reiterate that about half the Notes business is in SMB, of which plenty are in companies less than 1000. The Domino Express products sell well [insert SEC-approved financial disclosure of IBM product revenue] to that specific market size. There is always more opportunity there, since there are so many SMBs. But Notes is not absent from that market segment.

1. 34  Craig Wiseman  | 12/6/2006 4:20:32 PM

   @33 - You are 100% correct! I'm sitting here today @ a SmB client (70 users). Notes/Domino can be made to have a nice fit.

1. 35  Roberto Boccadoro  | 12/6/2006 4:31:01 PM

   Maybe we should define better what SMB means. I agree that IBM SMB can be a big company and I do have this problem myself; here in Italy a 5000 seats company is an enterprise though according to the US standards is SMB. Having said that, I do have several SMB (according to my standards, hundred not thousand users) companies that are using Websphere Portal. Does this ring any bell ?

   I mean, who said that a SMB company can't run DB2, WAS or Portal ? I believe that the myth SMB can only use Notes has to be demistyfied. They can use Domino and DB2 and WAS, what's wrong with this ?

   RoB

1. 36  Nathan T. Freeman http://www.openntf.org/nathan/escape.nsf | 12/6/2006 4:32:58 PM

   @33 - IBM's definition of SMB is pretty far out of whack with the BP community, if I remember correctly.

   @32 - I think you lost something in translation there. Are you trying to suggest that you'd get a bulldozer?

   @27 - LMAO. Wow. I didn't really NEED all that. I'm just fine with putting an IM proxy server in place that allows my 50 Sametime users to sign up with AIM, and then tell Sametime their AIM details, and be able to communicate through that proxy, while I block all other AIM comms at my firewall. That would suit me just fine, especially if I could just set a simple control in my Domino directory to authorize a user to do this.

   Like I said, the target audience for this product is clearly WAY off from someone like me.

   I hate to sound snarky, but in all sincerity, releases like this make me wonder if Rod Boothby has a point.

1. 37  Nathan T. Freeman http://www.openntf.org/nathan/escape.nsf | 12/6/2006 4:35:17 PM

   @35 - "I mean, who said that a SMB company can't run DB2, WAS or Portal?"

   Every SMB I've worked with in the last 8 years. Server requirements & licensing costs have made every person in a company < 200 employees choke on their coffee.

1. 38  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/6/2006 4:42:48 PM

   Nathan, nothing lost in translation. You ask for a spoon, and you get a bulldozer. Enterprise strength, so to say.

1. 39  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/6/2006 4:44:09 PM

   The benefit of a J2EE application should be that it is standards-based, right? So you would be able to install a much smaller application server and database. In practice however, you can't.

1. 40  Flemming Riis  | 12/6/2006 5:13:24 PM

   -Every SMB I've worked with in the last 8 years. Server requirements & licensing costs have made every person in a company < 200 employees choke on their coffee.

   Havent seen the pricing but if its WAS/DB2 licensed to the sametime feature alone there might be a change the price is SMB ready , but think they forgot to put the list price in the article.

1. 41  Richard Moy  | 12/6/2006 5:17:25 PM

   @31 I totally agree with you about SMB. We focus primarily on the true SMB market 250 or less and it practically does not exist for IBM in terms of marketing or support. If the customer is under 100 employees then you get even less. Domino is a great tool for the true SMB market and there is no focus effort to market to this segment. However, one of the best things that IBM has done was to come out with the Domino Express license. Now what we need is some marketing with that. When we show clients what we can do with Domino and Notes compared to what you can do with Microsoft solutions they are amazed what you can do in one box that required 5 to 6 boxes for a Microsoft solution.

1. 42  Flemming Riis  | 12/6/2006 5:18:44 PM

   -Your Lotus Sametime license includes the necessary licenses for DB2.

   that covers one part :)

1. 43  andy broyles http://andy.the-broyles.com | 12/6/2006 5:23:28 PM

   Has IBM considered offering this as an appliance on an 1-2U X-Series server?

   @37 - Express offerings make the licenses far more palettable.

1. 44  andy broyles http://andy.the-broyles.com | 12/6/2006 5:27:18 PM

   make that palatable :-)

1. 45  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/6/2006 6:18:19 PM

   Google welcomes Sametime XMPP support: { Link }

1. 46  Nathan T. Freeman http://www.openntf.org/nathan/escape.nsf | 12/6/2006 6:42:00 PM

   @Everyone who responded - if I could just get one DVD that installed exactly what I needed on a box with less than 4GB of RAM that was no more complicated than the Domino install, and I could tell it "here's my Domino/LDAP server with my user account list" and it just did it's thing, and all of this was available on an Express offering, then I'd shut the hell up about whether this thing ran on WAS, DB2, Tomcat, Domino, SQL Server or friggin' Banyan Vines. Then it would just do what I need, and be really simple to implement.

   Somehow, I don't think that's how this is going to work.

   Note to Ed: When you find Volker and I agreeing about something, look closely. :-)

1. 47  Chris Miller http://www.IdoNotes.com | 12/6/2006 8:12:45 PM

   @46 - you are almost there. The installer does most of the work. DB2 Express was a few clicks with no modification. The only thing really missing the is public SSL that must be performed to talk to AOL. That is AOL's requirement for the Clearinghouse.

   But, I would love to see it more simplified, much like WSE was. My box is not running 4GB of RAM for the gateway however. More like 1.5 with two mirrored 9GB drives I scrounged. Now that hardware is not for your larger user base of course. So we agree, easier install would be great. But with the first release I didn't expect it to be.

1. 48  Carl http://www.iminstant.com | 12/6/2006 8:37:22 PM

   @47 Although first impressions are very important. The first impressions were terrible for most with the initial Workplace Services product. It improved in Express but by then people's impressions had been made and set.

   No installer in the 21st century should need the person installing it to run a command line setup, unless you're installing it in a console window somewhere.

1. 49  Patrix  | 12/7/2006 2:32:02 AM

   @1, @2:

   { Link }

1. 50  Removed  | 12/7/2006 7:22:51 AM

   comment removed - no anonymous comments, especially from IBMers

1. 51  Roberto Boccadoro  | 12/7/2006 8:20:14 AM

   @37 - Nathan, this is definitely a difference between USA and here. As I said I do have companies with < 200 employees using those products.

   @48 - Carl, you are too smart to be scared by a command line setup. Install is for admins, not for users and almost all the admins I know are not worried about using command line or editing manually property files. Do not confuse the two populations; I agree users should not have to use a DOS box, but that's all.

   What do you think of Linux, btw ? Most of the distributions do require CLI to perform admin tasks and all the people I know who are using Linux do not care about it.

   IMHO if you just look at the "complexity" of the install process and do not see the benefit that the product you are installing brings you, you are only looking at the tree and not seeing the forest.

   RoB

1. 52  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 8:39:27 AM

   @51 - This is where I think IBM's understanding of (what I would consider) SMBs falls down. In many of the S shops (50-200 users), the skill level of the admin could be considered to be an advanced user.

   The install should show IBM's attention to detail. IBM has great, well designed products, but frequently seems to forget to put the finishing touches that are just critical for full customer satisfaction.

   An example - I've heard on this thread that IBM is very interested in pursuing non-Domino shops. (At least that's the Trojan reason for the WAS/DB2 _decision_). Have you every tried to install Sametime 7.0 or 6 in a pure M$ AD environment? Sure, it can be done, but simple and straightforward it ain't. And it should be - if appropriate attention was paid to the installation process.

1. 53  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 8:51:11 AM

   My primary point for the example is not that you have to install & config Domino first, but that you have to actually find (not in the documentation!) what the correct LDAP look up strings are and manaully put them in the config, even for sites that keep all their users in the standard AD OUs. That's just lack of attention to detail....

1. 54  Nathan T. Freeman http://www.openntf.org/nathan/escape.nsf | 12/7/2006 8:55:27 AM

   @51 - Your primary competitors either allow you to A) install easily via wizards (set up a an AD PDC lately? And Exchange server? Point, click, go.) OR B) let you outsource by clicking on some stuff on the web and putting in a credit card number.

   That's your competition for the SMB market. Craig's dead-on. CLI installs make IBM look like fly-by-night coders, which means great products languish in smaller markets because they have no small-scale deployment capabilities.

   Do you remember the response that the Win32 version of the Domino server got? It made all the difference.

1. 55  Adam Gartenberg http://www.adamgartenberg.com | 12/7/2006 9:05:36 AM

   A lot of discussion here (more than you expected, I'm sure, Ed)... I've got more comments than it probably makes sense to post right here (other than to say that we are listening).

   Please see here { Link } for the beginning of answers to the questions/concerns raised here.

1. 56  Mike Lazar  | 12/7/2006 9:14:32 AM

   I have to concur with Craig. Enterprise admins can handle this. They'll complain, but then they'll also be able to say, "You need me here because no one else can install and manage the system". SMBs with a jack-of-all-trades admin/power user will run away from this because it just isn't easy. That is something that has always been lacking with IBM, IMO.

1. 57  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 12/7/2006 9:19:31 AM

   @51 Only Italians scare me. Seriously, I am not scared by command line installers, but in most case there is no excuse for them. There is a fine line for IBM to tread obviously, you make more than 50% of your profit from consulting services, if you software becomes too easy to install who needs your consulting services? So again I make the statement, Installers running on an OS with graphics etc. already configured should not require command line setup.

   What do I think of Linux? To be honest whenever I see an answer to a question that starts with something along the lines of "oh just build the kernel using this build blah blah" my eyes glaze over and I think it's no where need ready for the majority. People that have 100% of their time dedicated to keeping servers and OSs running probably have no issue with this. For me a small business owner, my time can be better spent on other things. These tools are to run business not to keep IT departments in business no?

   All this talk of Sameitme customers running different infrastructures is kind of bogus too. The majority I come across are already running Domino to get Sametime, all that IBM has done with the requirement for WAS and DB2 is increased the skills required. If it's a Microsoft shop, they're probably not already running WAS or DB2, so they now need someone with those skills, so why not an IIS/.NET version? I know that many of IBMs largest Sametime customers are not particularly impressed by the requirements for the gateway. So I'm not sure who IBM based their delivery on. As I have said previously though, the functionality right now out weighs the requirements, so it's moot, but I think it could be better and it's all about continuous improvement.

1. 58  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 10:00:54 AM

   @57 - I don't see it as a 'fine line'. Any company that has to (or can because of size) design deficient/incomplete software to drive consulting revenue deserves to get trounced in the marketplace. IBM SWG should (and for the most part does) design and deliver world-class software. Period. The consulting business will do quite well on it's own if that's done.

1. 59  Mike Lazar  | 12/7/2006 10:05:05 AM

   Well, I don't know if I would go as far as Craig here saying it's on purpose to benefit the Consulting Group, but the installers do need help. I think that much is clear.

1. 60  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 12/7/2006 10:06:21 AM

   @The discussion about SMB's - The United States Small Business Administration defines a SMB based on the industry { Link } For those industries in which employee count is relevant, the number ranges from 100 to 1000, with the majority at the 500 employee level. The European Union defines a small business as fewer than 50 employees and fewer than 250 as medium { Link } . No matter which set of numbers you use, there is no doubt about it: IBM's numbers, and in my opinion their focus, are way off.

   @12 - I made a shirt with exactly that on it and wore it at Lotusphere '06. :)

   @27 - Based on everything announced to date there will be no Sametime Limited Use integration for Notes 8. There are no plans for Sametime 7.5 Limited Use server, which is the version that integrates with Notes 8. This is a HUGE deal for us, and I'm watching this closely.

1. 61  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 10:12:26 AM

   @59 - I'm NOT saying that IBM does that - I don't think they do that. I'm just pointing out that they shouldn't do it.

   I DO think that they leave the installation, configuration, and troubleshooting parts a little...rough...., but I think that's because they're used to dealing with LARGE companies that have hordes of dedicated IT staff that can spend their time learning to support the software. And that ties back to my fervent belief that IBM has work to do in understanding the SMB market. And I don't mean SMB as IBM defines it, but as most OTHER folks define it.

1. 62  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/7/2006 10:22:03 AM

   @60 "Based on everything announced to date there will be no Sametime Limited Use integration for Notes 8"

   what????

   The entitlement in Notes 8 will continue to be along the same lines of what's in Notes 6.5 and Notes 7. There was no update for 7.5 because 7.5 can't integrate with the -current- version of Notes.

   @58 I can assure you that there is no software design point at IBM that is done to "drive consulting revenue". I know that's one of MS's favorite points of FUD (notwithstanding the growth in their own consulting practices, or Accenture/Avanade's practices), but it is absolutely not a practice at IBM.

1. 63  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 10:25:09 AM

   @60 - I'm pretty sure that's an impossible certifcation for a mere human to hold. Perhaps specializations: "Certified IBM Lotus Web Navigator" or "Certified IBM Rational Navigator"?

   Then there's the unattainable one: "Certified IBM Partnerworld Navigator"

   8-)

1. 64  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 10:28:44 AM

   @62 - It's funny that y'all are taking what I wrote as saying that, yet the comment I responded to directly implies it....

1. 65  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 10:29:56 AM

   Ok. I'm not sure how you "directly imply" something, but, hopefully you get what I mean.

1. 66  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/7/2006 10:33:53 AM

   @64, ok, my comment should have been directed to Carl in #57. He is implying it but again, I reiterate, it is wrong to say that IBM designs software to drive profit in consulting services. And Carl is also incorrect -- while 50% of IBM revenue comes from services, 50% profit does not.

1. 67  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 12/7/2006 10:50:35 AM

   @62 - When Adam Gartenberg said there will be no Sametime 7.5 Limited Use server he never said anything about integration into Notes 6/7 being an issue. To quote his response on my blog:

   "The short answer is that the majority of server enhancements with Sametime 7.5 relate to enhanced Web Conferencing and policies to control features that are not available with the Notes entitlement."

   { Link } { Link }

   If there will be Sametime LU entitlement in Notes 8 that's great, but this is the first time anything has been said about it that I am aware of. That's why I said "Based on everything announced to date..." and further said "I'm watching this closely."

   As we said before, the message from Lotus isn't always clear.

1. 68  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/7/2006 10:55:22 AM

   Adam was talking about the server, which is what you asked him about. You've now extrapolated it to the client.

1. 69  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 11:07:17 AM

   @68 - It's a reasonable extrapolation.

   If the "Limited Use" server go away with sametime 7.5, and our understanding is that you have to have the LU server to deploy the entitlement, then it's reasonable to assume that the entitlement goes away.

   That doesn't make it a correct extrapolation, but it's IBM's job to convey the information, not Charles' job to pry it out of IBM.

1. 70  Adam Gartenberg http://www.adamgartenberg.com | 12/7/2006 11:08:13 AM

   Charles - I was specifically talking about the server and in response to a specific question about making it available with Notes 7.0.x. As Ed said, we will definitely have a Sametime 7.5 limited use server to go along with the enhanced embedded IM capabilities coming in Hannover.

1. 71  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 12/7/2006 11:14:56 AM

   @68 - I really don't want to get into splitting semantic hairs. The end result is there will be Sametime Limited Use in Notes 8. That's all I care about, and I appreciate the update.

   @69 - I'm glad somebody understood my reasoning. All I did was connect the dots. As you point out, if I end up in the wrong place whose fault is that?

   @70 - Thanks, had you made that clear from the start it would have eased a lot of my anxiety. Oh, and it's not called Hannover anymore, it's officially Notes 8. ;)

1. 72  Adam Gartenberg http://www.adamgartenberg.com | 12/7/2006 11:40:36 AM

   @71 - I wish I had, too. To be honest, it never occured to me that anyone would assume that the entitlement was going away. Glad we cleared that up.

1. 73  david racicot  | 12/7/2006 1:49:14 PM

   With respect to "Hannover" ===> "Notes 8.0", why use "Hannover" at all? Can we just call Notes 9, "Notes 9"? It would be just one less renaming that we have to deal with.

1. 74  David Schaffer http://bloginprogress.us | 12/7/2006 3:04:12 PM

   I've had this argument before: { Link }

   The technical arguments from IBM's side may be sound but it's not what they've been promising, which was that Sametime 7.5 would allow you to exchange IM with public systems. That's not a reasonable option for small Notes/Sametime installations. I was just about to use the public IM feature in justifying a Sametime 7.5 purchase for an under-50-user Notes installation. The true requirements for RTC were released in time for me to not look like a fool (The site will probably still go with Sametime 7.5 for internal IM and web conference, but there won't be false expectations).

   It's a win for Trillian Pro.

1. 75  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/7/2006 3:04:43 PM

   @73 most software projects typically have codenames before they ship. "Hannover" is no different.

1. 76  Craig Wiseman  | 12/7/2006 3:29:29 PM

   @75 - I think codenames are fine. I AM curious about one thing - in another place, you hinted that there was some discussion about whether to use the "8.0" version number.

   Anything you can share about that here (he he in public... where everyone else in the universe can see....)? What else could it have been called? Eclotes 1.0?

1. 77  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/7/2006 3:32:26 PM

   It could have been called "Jack's big music show", but that one was taken, too.

   Seriously -- all sorts of ideas get bounced around. I think most of them are best left on the cutting room floor.

1. 78  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 12/7/2006 3:37:04 PM

   @66 you are right, last time I listen to CNBC. It was interesting to read that software group is 85% profitable. Those numbers are even better than Microsoft!

1. 79  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 12/7/2006 3:38:56 PM

   @72 - I didn't think the LU entitlement was going away, I just hadn't heard how it was being addressed in Notes 8 and wanted to make sure others knew there had been nothing publicly stated on that subject since the "there will be no Sametime 7.5 Limited Use" message.

   I honestly thought that Notes 8 would use Sametime 7.0 Limited Use and deploy the necessary Eclipse components on the client to provide enhanced functionality. I welcome Sametime 7.5, though (mostly for the server-based logging feature).

1. 80  Volker Weber http://vowe.net/about | 12/7/2006 3:49:44 PM

   Speaking of Caterpillar: RAD 7 is out. 5,979,588,733 bytes download: { Link }

1. 81  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 12/7/2006 3:59:26 PM

   At least it is a streaming caterpillar.

1. 82  Dave Madison  | 12/7/2006 10:54:08 PM

   @75.. and generally because the marketing folks haven't decided what version number and the like they are going to settle on. So, the dev team has to identify the project somehow.

1. 83  Roberto Boccadoro  | 12/8/2006 7:36:54 AM

   @80 - you can't get the power of a Caterpillar in the size of a Fiat (Ford, VW, replace with your favourite brand...) :-)

   RoB

1. 84  Matt Buchanan  | 12/8/2006 8:08:44 AM

   Picked up by The Register: { Link } - interesting perspective on the lack of connection to MSN Messenger...

1. 85  Craig Wiseman  | 12/8/2006 8:16:06 AM

   EXACTLY! What IBM needs to get is that many many situations (esp. SMB ones) would benefit far more from a LOW upkeep Honda Odyessy than a Hummer. Yes, the Hummer would 'work' but it's not the easiest or most cost effective solution.

1. 86  Greyhawk68 http://www.greyhawk68.com | 12/8/2006 10:01:33 AM

   #84: It sure seems that The Register read my article at Intranet Journal and came to their own conclusions. Check out the interesting similarities here: { Link }

1. 87  david racicot  | 12/8/2006 10:16:52 AM

   Then I think at a minimum it should ALWAYS be called Lotus Notes and Domino RNext. Just so no one in IBM marketing gets any silly ideas.

1. 88  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 12/8/2006 10:31:25 AM

   @83 - Are you seriously trying to justify 5.5GB for a development IDE?

1. 89  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 12/8/2006 11:11:51 AM

   @88 - Charles, have you installed visual studio.net 2005 with all the options and help and Office addons and such? About the same size ...

1. 90  Roberto Boccadoro  | 12/8/2006 1:01:16 PM

   @88 - Yes. As John said is not uncommon.

   If look at what it gives you, that disk space is not an exxageration.

   Seems the national sport is shooting at IBM, but have you looked how much space takes Office ? How many Mb to write a letter or creata a spreadsheet ? I could do basically the same stuff with 1-2-3 and Wordperfect for DOS. How come nobody complains about MS products install size ?

1. 91  Carl Tyler http://www.iminstant.com | 12/8/2006 4:34:41 PM

   @90 They do but I bet you're not hanging around the MSDN forums. Purchasers of Microsoft, IBM, Lotus all have their complaints. This is nothing new, it's what gives you guys ideas for new features. Do you really think that people only shoot IBM? You need to get out more Roberto, the press picks on Microsoft all the time (often fairly), Microsoft customers happy with the constant security updates? No. Do they talk about it yes, you just have to look in the right places. I doubt many Microsoft users come to Ed's blog to complain about that.

   Without customer pains you'd never sell an upgrades as they don't need anything further. We just don't like having more pains inflicted upon us.

   Ed's blog has become a place where people vent I believe as we know that people that can relate, or the people that can have an impact and change things are reading it. This used to be the Notes.net forums, but I don't think people believe IBMers read it that as much as this blog. Now I don't believe that to be true, but some do, as I know there are many IBM lurkers in the forums.

1. 92  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 12/8/2006 5:12:56 PM

   I don't want to drag this even further off topic, but I will say that comparing a full install of VS.Net to RAD 7 is apples and oranges. I've never done a full install of VS.Net because I don't need everything it offers.

1. 93  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 12/8/2006 5:27:08 PM

   VS.Net and RAD 7 is apples to apples Charles ... both contain tools for building and testing multiple applications and programming languages. That 5+ gig includes test versions of WAS and other IBM servers so a developer can test stuff. You really need to look at both before going off on them.

1. 94  David Bell  | 12/8/2006 5:31:50 PM

   @92 - "but I will say that comparing a full install of VS.Net to RAD 7 is apples and oranges."

   Care to expand ?

   "I've never done a full install of VS.Net because I don't need everything it offers."

   Why would you think about RAD any differently ? There is a lot in that 5.5GB that you might not need. Several versions of test environments for a start.

   And unless I'm mistaken, VS.Net provides for development for only one platform.

1. 95  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 12/9/2006 9:16:00 AM

   I finally found the features list for RAD 7 and I was wrong. While fundamentally different than VS.Net it is of a similar scope. I don't want to turn this into a debate of Microsoft versus IBM, so I'll stop there.