Introducing IBM XWork Server

October 2 2011

I'm debuting a new member of my family one day early (it's October 3, 12:05 AM on the US east coast now :-) this morning. This new child has a bit of sibling rivalry, in that Notes/Domino 8.5.3 will be formally announced tomorrow, and I want to give you an opportunity to meet the new kid without big brother hogging the spotlight. Yes, we told partners and IBM Champions last week that they were under NDA until October 4...but hey, it's my baby, I'm going to brag about it on my terms :-) (and you can talk about this new server now, too).

Tomorrow, IBM will announce IBM XWork Server 8.5.3. The new server is part of the IBM Lotus Domino 8.5.3 family, but with a completely different licensing approach, different branding, and different packaging (installer). The new IBM XWork Server will be available for ordering tomorrow, and the software release is scheduled for Friday, October 7, in English.

Image:Introducing IBM XWork Server

IBM XWork Server is the new product offering you built. At the beginning of 2011, I took full responsibility for the IBM messaging and collaboration business, which meant picking up our application development story for Notes/Domino for the first time. In March, I provocatively blogged a question -- what audience was the priority in getting XPages established in the market? The majority of the responses to that blog, as well as the research my team did through other vehicles, showed us that the biggest impact could be made in reinvigorating the Notes/Domino software vendor (ISV) channel. After all, ISV solutions are what made Lotus Notes/Domino the success they were and are, but, well, we've gotten a bit away from that over the last several years. Meanwhile, we implemented XPages in Domino 8.5.x, with thousands of XPages developers in the marketplace today. Looking at OpenNTF.org, sales of Mastering XPages, and seminar attendance, XPages is clearly becoming mainstream.

However, I didn't completely want to limit our new server audience to XPages. Though I initially floated a name of "XPages Application Server" some months ago at DNUG, we went with the cooler-sounding and somewhat less-restrictive IBM XWork Server as the final name. XWork Server can work with any regular Domino application--XPages, Lotusscript, @functions. It is being introduced to drive XPages adoption, but not to the detriment of the family. By the way, I still think branding is the hardest part of marketing, and want to credit my boss Jeff Schick for coming up with the server name.

You are probably wondering, what is it and how is it different?

By license, an IBM XWork Server is an application server only that is licensed on a fixed-term, per-install basis. No PVUs, no CALs (see, I listen!). Just a fixed annual license of approximately US$2,000 per server install. That's it.

The license is restricted, so as to distinguish it from other Domino family offerings. The restriction is that each XWork Server install may have up to four applications installed, where an application is defined generally as a group of one to four NSFs. Thus, an XWork Server install can have a total of 16 production, non-system NSFs -- up to four per application. If you need more than four applications, you can license a second install of the IBM XWork Server on the same physical deployment, which doubles the numbers. However, if you need more than that, Domino Utility Server/Utility Express remain the products to buy in the Domino family.

I said earlier that the IBM XWork Server is designed to grow the ISV market for Domino. The choice of fixed-term, per-install licensing was designed to go hand-in-hand with IBM's Application-Specific Licensing and other channel sales programs. IBM XWork Server is intended to primarily be sold as a "white label" server technology. This means, it isn't necessarily my intent to sell the heck out of XWork Server by itself, though I'm ok with that happening; it is really more designed for an ISV to sell as an integrated stack, like a single combined purchase with the ISV's solution.

By example, I met business partner We4IT at Lotusphere Comes to You in Dusseldorf earlier this year. They were excited to show me their vacation tracking application. It started as a Notes database years ago, had been converted to XPages, and now We4IT had explicitly mobile-enabled the web interface. It wasn't tied to email, so I asked them if they had ever sold it into Microsoft-focused customers. They said they had not, because they also had to "sell" (whether they actually sold the license or just the vision) the Lotus Domino server simultaneously. In discussion, I felt like if We4IT, and any other similar partner, could just tell their customer "our solution runs on an IBM software server", we could get past some objections based on perception or pre-existing standards in a broader segment of the market.

We are not intending to aggressively market IBM XWork Server to the end customer. I'm sure that will invite some cynicism and the usual armchair quarterbacking, but again let me state clearly that our intent is to simply offer our server technology in a vehicle that is as frictionless as possible. There are corporate environments that will buy XWork Server, but if we can amp up the channel and the market for XPages, we will have accomplished my initial goal.

Last week, we pre-briefed over a hundred business partners on the new XWork Server, and made it clear -- we are looking to actively work with ISVs to create the best-possible conditions for you to sell your solution. Our channel sales team is ready to discuss XWork Server and, if appropriate, we have some flexibility in individual situations to color outside the lines of the announced offering's terms and conditions. Tomorrow, our channel announcement, web pages, and other collateral will be available.

The IBM XWork Server is a clear example of the success of being a social business. We collaborated in all the best ways possible to build the new server, internally within IBM as well as with the market. Thank you to my team (current and past) for conceiving the new server and making it happen. And thank you to several partners, including Sean Cull of focul, for providing sounding boards during the design phase of this effort.

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  XWork XPages  Add/View Comments [102]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Chris Miller http://www.IdoNotes.com | 10/2/2011 11:11:31 PM

    Awesome news and excellent announcement. We are happy to see this as a hosting partner, making is easy for ISV's and others to start using XPage based applications easier.

  1. 2  Bruce Elgort http://openntf.org | 10/2/2011 11:13:41 PM

    Congratulations IBM. This is something asked for by the community and you delivered. Thank you.

  1. 3  Bill Geimer  | 10/2/2011 11:19:59 PM

    Very cleaver idea, and a much better name at birth than it was a DNUG.

  1. 4  Venkatesh Krishnamoorthy http://www.maargasystems.com | 10/2/2011 11:59:47 PM

    Absolutely thrilled to see this offering, Ed. The name is great! The licensing model is great. Removing the PVU limitation is a great idea. Definite boost to get Domino based apps into other environments.

    Congrats to the product and the labs teams on this useful addition.

  1. 5  Peter Lurie http://www.polycom.com/ibm | 10/3/2011 12:13:27 AM

    Nice job, Ed. I think this is a great solution to some of the licensing issues. It gives yet another option for ISVs.

  1. 6  Chris Fales http://www.docova.com | 10/3/2011 12:37:49 AM

    Great announcement Ed. I think the concept of white labeling the server rather than positioning it as a strong public brand unto itself is the way to go. As you say this provides the ability to get an IBM stack into some companies that would be reluctant to entertain Domino due to a (mis?) perception issue. The price point is nice as well for the SMB market.

    One item I am not sure about is the 4x4 db limit. A straight 16db definition would be much clearer in my opinion. For example, in the case of a suite of applications that all share a common configuration db. Is the configuration db an app unto itself, or lumped under the db pool of one of the bundled apps? Becomes a bit muddled. Whereas if it were just 16 apps is the limit for the base licence, you know where you stand.

    In any case I am sure these questions will get sorted out as we move forward, and I am glad for the new addition to the family.

  1. 7  Mat Newman http://www.matnewman.com | 10/3/2011 12:38:24 AM

    Ed, the new IBM XWork server is sure to make life easier for ISV's to licence and bundle their solutions - especially for customers who aren't existing Domino shops, or who wouldn't consider a "Lotus" or "Domino" based application.

    Thanks! (and since we can talk about it now, more about what's under the hood is here: { Link })

  1. 8  John Jardin http://jvjardin.wordpress.com/ | 10/3/2011 12:41:52 AM

    Excellent news all in all. The rumors were quite accurate ;).

  1. 9  Yvan Cainzos http://www.perhalion.ch | 10/3/2011 1:15:12 AM

    This a great announcement, I'm convinced that all approach to get more XPages apps is the right way

  1. 10  Patrick Kwinten http://quintessens.wordpress.com | 10/3/2011 1:29:38 AM

    would be great if IBM provided xwork templates by default

    e.g. a blog template that can easily host multiple sites or a wiki that can contain multiple wikis

    but this would be a treat to other IBM products.

    nevertheless this product may generate a new application development market !

  1. 11  Andy Steven  | 10/3/2011 1:33:03 AM

    Like the name, no mention of lotus. Very shrewd. And the tag li e neatly sums up what it does

  1. 12  Andy Steven  | 10/3/2011 1:33:05 AM

    Like the name, no mention of lotus. Very shrewd. And the tag li e neatly sums up what it does

  1. 13  Fredrik Norling  | 10/3/2011 1:49:42 AM

    Thank's for this interesting post.

    Has I understood this the XWork server has no hardware restrictions (CPU:s, WMWare hosting) and no organizational restrictions (below 1000 employees).

    Another thing is as an ISV can we host customers using this license? (4 databases = 4 Customers)?

  1. 14  Fredrik Stöckel  | 10/3/2011 1:58:13 AM

    Nice. This will help a lot!

    @13 4 or less nsf's = 1 customer :)

    Fredrik

  1. 15  Andy Dunbar http://www.Polymorph.co.uk | 10/3/2011 1:58:58 AM

    Well done... will get the ISV business back in the game...

  1. 16  Paul Withers http://hermes.intec.co.uk/intec/blog.nsf | 10/3/2011 2:42:49 AM

    Great news, a great addition to the family and a perfect 'entry-level' option for new customers

  1. 17  Karsten Lehmann http://blog.mindoo.com | 10/3/2011 3:08:31 AM

    Looks like an interesting new license model.

    Ed, if I have understood it right, we as an ISV can buy one XWork server and host an unlimited number of users on it. Those users may work with up to 4 applications and the XWork server is allowed to pull data from another standard Domino server.

    Now let's say that we create a personal database for each one of those thousands or millions of users on the secondary Domino server. The darabases on the XWork server do not really contain any user data, just the XPages UI. To speed things up, both servers are running on the same physical hardware.

    Does the new license cover this scenario? Communication between server 1 and 2 could be done using a shared Notes ID (code on server 1 would be signed with this id and we use sessionAsSigner for the data lookup).

    If the license covers the scenario, what about accessing server 2 with the session of the currently logged in user? Do we need CALs for each user, because they access a Domino server with standard license that way?

  1. 18  Vijaya Kumar http://www.qafco.com | 10/3/2011 3:39:31 AM

    Great News. Good Offring.

    Example for good xpage application in qatar

    { Link }

  1. 19  Shahan Ur Rehman  | 10/3/2011 3:42:31 AM

    Dear ED,

    Good to hear about the new offering. A question popped up in my mind that would XWork server not threaten the sales of Utility server? Being re-seller we could sell a Utility server easily to client with non-messaging needs. As you mentioned XWork would cost USD 2000/- for 4 Apps/16 DBs .. there seems to be a huge difference in the license cost of both!

    Cheers!

    R,

    Shahan

  1. 20  Sean J  | 10/3/2011 4:14:18 AM

    As someone who responded to your original provocative post re 'in-house versus ISV priorities', and one of several who suggested a non-Lotus branded Xpages-focussed Domino server offering, all I can say is WOW!!!

    Hopefully this is just the start of more re-packaging options to target small and young businesses.

  1. 21  Alan H  | 10/3/2011 4:16:39 AM

    Only available to ISV's? Or can a company with existing Notes CALs buy this as part of their Domino deployment?

  1. 22  Almar Diehl http://www.domino-weblog.nl | 10/3/2011 4:25:02 AM

    Ed,

    we received the document XWorkServerFAQ_v3. In the document the following is the Q/A about licensing:

    Q: Do I need a Client Access License to access XWork Server?

    A: You do need a Client Access License (CAL) when accessing from a desktop browser or mobile device.

    You may access an application running on an XWork Server from a Lotus Notes client provided you have purchased a Domino Enterprise Client Access License.

    Your blog states: "By license, an IBM XWork Server is an application server only that is licensed on a fixed-term, per-install basis. No PVUs, no CALs (see, I listen!)"

    I hope and assume that your statement is the one to believe ;-)

  1. 23  Carsten  | 10/3/2011 4:57:52 AM

    I like the idea, but i don't fully get it ...

    1.

    So it is quite okay to have 16 * 64 GB databases, but not 17 * 100 MB databases ?

    So now a new skill is needed ... merge databases to save costs .... I like new skills, but this one does not make sence to customers.

    2.

    By definition a domino template is also a database, how do you calculate them ?

    3.

    CAL clarifications:

    So if you only have only one IBM XWorks server for a customer, then there are no license cost for Lotus Notes clients, because there are no CAL costs ?

    You can have also unlimited "web users" created in a directory - domino or LDAP - and authenticate with no extra costs ?

  1. 24  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 5:09:24 AM

    OK several questions, here are some quick answers.

    A CAL is *only* needed, like Utility Server, if you want to connect a Lotus Notes client. The FAQ needs to be updated, not sure how that got through.

    There is no organizational size restriction.

    Re the difference vs. Domino Utility Server, that is why this server has license restrictions. Utility Express also did/does. Full Utility Server remains the enterprise unrestricted solution in this space.

    Re number of applications and NSFs. This does seem a little tricky, but we had to start somewhere to define a server environment that could be sold for $2000 via fixed-term license instead of the price of Utility via standard Passport Advantage terms. We have also said, and I think I did it too subtly above, that these are the general terms, but if you are an ISV with specific needs we have some flexibility. And re the idea that people will rewrite apps to make them fit, this is no different than customers who cram too much workload on a 100 PVU machine rather than buy 200 PVUs.

    Re @21 it will be sold via Passport Advantage, so corporate/enterprise customers can buy directly in addition to ASL or other approaches.

    Re questions about hosting, this is where we will need to work out some individual agreements, but clearly I'd like you to be able to do that for individual customer needs. Feel free to send me email on that topic if you are specifically interested in hosting and XWork Server.

  1. 25  Jack Dausman http://www.leadershipbynumbers.com | 10/3/2011 5:42:03 AM

    Very powerful package. It's heartening to see IBM/Lotus building on the momentum of XPages.

  1. 26  Alexey Katyushyn  | 10/3/2011 5:59:47 AM

    Great News, Ed!

    Thank you for everything you do!

    And question: how to license a Web-based access to the mailbox in case of licensing XWork Server?

  1. 27  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 6:21:24 AM

    @26 email mailboxes are not available with XWork Server, same as Domino Utility/Utility Express. You can use a mail-in database, but providing an end user with email is restricted by license.

  1. 28  Per Henrik Lausten http://PHL-Consult.dk | 10/3/2011 6:33:50 AM

    Congratulations with the newborn child and its name!

    Is anonymous access allowed (for more than just an initial logon screen for the apps)? Thanks.

  1. 29  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 6:57:48 AM

    @28 yes, anonymous access is allowed on IBM XWork Server.

  1. 30  Finn L Knudsen http://www.idocode.net | 10/3/2011 7:05:06 AM

    Good news - good name.

    Is any tasks from the Domino stack excluded.

    What about SMTP - is sending email possible?

    Is DECS included ?

    How about cluster replication, is it 2 (or more) licenses if I want if want a clustered solution?

  1. 31  Joost van Gils http://www.isprojects.nl | 10/3/2011 7:11:05 AM

    Great way forward, like te name!

    Hope this will overcome the anti-Domino attitude of Dutch IT-managers when implementing our web application suite (sold to the business :-))

  1. 32  Jesper Kiaer - Jezzper Consulting http://nevermind.dk | 10/3/2011 7:17:27 AM

    Really good news, it will certainly help revitalize the platform. It is a good start ...but we are not there yet

  1. 33  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 7:28:35 AM

    @30 all server capabilities are included except the ability to host a user email mailbox.

    Clustering is allowed between XWork Servers, but each needs a license.

  1. 34  Rajeev R Menon  | 10/3/2011 7:52:40 AM

    This is a great news. But 4 applications (4 databases per application) limitation is going to be big enough limitation for developers to architect a scalable application. I would say, if this $2000 server cannot let me install a 50 databases application, then this new server is not going to work for me. It would be great if the databases limit can be raised to 50 without any restriction like, one application has to be 4 or less.

  1. 35  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 8:10:15 AM

    @34 that is the market for Domino Utility Server/Utility Express. I don't expect this new server to work for everyone.

  1. 36  Femke Goedhart http://femkegoedhart.blogspot.com/ | 10/3/2011 8:12:37 AM

    Great news! Will certainly prove to fill a gap. Database restrictions could be a limitation but as with any newborn.... Give it a chance to mature and who knows what it will grow into!

    Love that IBM is thinking along and offering these new capabilities!

  1. 37  Mark Hughes   | 10/3/2011 8:38:30 AM

    Awesome news!! One question, it is or might it be possible to say have only 2 applications with 8 nsf's each?

    Btw thanks for this, it is nice for IBM to listen and deliver once again.

  1. 38  Carsten  | 10/3/2011 8:41:07 AM

    more issues,

    how do you describe an application, because in the Notes client each database is referred to as an application ... but on XWorks, it would be for a collection of databases

  1. 39  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 9:09:48 AM

    @38 a collection of 1-4 NSFs.

  1. 40  Steve Pridemore  | 10/3/2011 9:53:03 AM

    This is exactly what I needed, Thanks.

    One question, When renewing at the end of the fixed term will it be the same price as the initial purchase?

    Currently the utility express is about $3000 per 100 PVU for the initial purchase but much less to renew...

    assuming the fixed term renewal is $2000 and one is qualified for express, would it be a better option to just go with utility express server in the long run?

  1. 41  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 10:01:48 AM

    @40 the answer is 'it depends' ;-) We did a compare to Utility Express at 200 PVUs in coming up with the price point and it is comparable value over a three year period. The renewal for XWork Server - well, technically it isn't a renewal as it is a new fixed term - is the same as the initial price, so definitely different than the current model of S&S.

    Like I've said a few times, we're prepared to work with the channel (especially) to make this work. I love what Femke said @36 above about it maturing as the baby grows up.

  1. 42  Scott Tomlinson http://www.docova.com | 10/3/2011 10:08:59 AM

    Ed - This is great news. A definite step in the right direction. Might need to connect with a channel rep to make sure we can take full advantage of this offering.

  1. 43  Erik Brooks  | 10/3/2011 10:10:21 AM

    Ed, I find it really interesting that this a fixed-term price year-by-year. Will this new offering be promoted by IBM Sales reps at all? Or is it primarily an ISV thing?

    The fixed-term price means that IBM sales reps (assuming they are involved at all) will actually care about renewals as much as - and possibly even more than - new sales.

  1. 44  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 10:11:41 AM

    @42 I think that connection is already in progress.

    @43 it is intended to be primarily an ISV thing, but an IBM rep certainly can sell it and has incentives to do so..you are on the right train of thought.

  1. 45  Don Mottolo  | 10/3/2011 10:49:03 AM

    Excellent news! It's clear you listen to the community, recognized a good idea and have come through with it.

  1. 46  Richard Moy http://www.dominointerface.com | 10/3/2011 10:59:25 AM

    Ed,

    This is a good start. The 4 NSF x 4 application however needs to be changed. Having a straight 16 and if possible 20 non-system NSFs is a better and less confusing approach. The definite of an application seems subjective and having a limit on the number of NSF files is clear and concise. At $2000 per year it is not bad, it would have been nicer if it was lower like $1200 OR $1500, but I can live with that. If there is not going to be any direct marketing of the IBM XWorks Server, is there any plans of any type of marketing support for ISVs?

    Also, Ed there is one thing that I was confused about. The fixed-term contract, is with us as ISVs or with our customers. It seems that as an ISV solution, the contract should be with us as ISVs and not with our customers. Please clarify. Thanks.

  1. 47  David Leedy http://notesin9.com | 10/3/2011 11:04:49 AM

    This is really exciting news!! Love it!

    I did have one question though. Was there any thought, or could there be to pricing it on a "per app" basis. Granted I'm NOT an ISV... but as I look at this, if I wanted to create an app to address really small businesses or even schools the $2000 a year might still be a little pricey. Now I could setup a server I guess and host multiple customers (4-8 maybe) to spread out XWork server fee but that would be a hosted app then and not really something I could drop in on site if they wanted. So I think I could host an app cheaper then placing it on-site.

    It sure would be nice to be able to say that I just want a single collection of 1-4 nsf's for $500 each... $2,000 divided by 4. Then I would think I could really build targets solutions for small business.

    Don't get me wrong. I really like what this is. Just don't want to leave really small businesses or schools/charities out in the cold.

    Thanks so much!!!

  1. 48  Craig Wiseman http://www.wiseman.La/cpw | 10/3/2011 11:04:55 AM

    Very good news & offering!

    It's great to see a simplified offering that normal humans can understand. Love to see more along those lines.

  1. 49  Richard Moy http://www.dominointerface.com | 10/3/2011 11:17:47 AM

    @47,

    David, my clients are all SMBs. In order to fit into the IBM 4 x 4 we will have to redesign and would be a pain in the ass. Having a 16 NSF only is much better. I do agree that $2000 per year is a bit steep for SMB especially compared with open source platforms.

  1. 50  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 11:38:41 AM

    @46/47, this is a first release. We will take the feedback on the licensing model and consider any changes needed in a future release. As mentioned, for specific opportunities we can pursue different terms as well through normal vehicles. But this is the model, it isn't going to change on paper in this release.

    @46 the fixed term contract is with whomever buys the server. If it is bought by the ISV through ASL, it is with the ISV, if it is bought by the end-customer it is with the end-customer.

  1. 51  Steve Pridemore  | 10/3/2011 11:48:30 AM

    @Ed, a quick question on buying multiple licenses to increase capacity...

    with a single license you get 4 apps each with 4 nsf (4X4)

    if you buy a second license it "doubles the numbers" so does that mean 8X4, 4X8 or 8X8 and if I buy a third license does it double again? 16X4, 4X16 or 16X16...

  1. 52  Steve Pridemore  | 10/3/2011 11:56:14 AM

    Hypothetically...

    I have a Help desk application that consists of a primary nsf and x number of customer data nsf's.

    With a single license I could deploy 4 instances of the application with each instance hosting data for 3 customers for a total of 12 customers

    assuming "double the numbers" means (8X8) with the second license I could deploy 8 instances of the application each instance supporting 7 customers for a total of 56 customers?

  1. 53  Alex Homsi http://www.triloggroup.com | 10/3/2011 12:04:49 PM

    @Ed, this is great news. You didn't mention anything about OSGI plugins for the Xwork Server. I am assuming that there is no limitation on the OSGI plug-ins that could be installed to extend the XWork server. Is this correct?

    Thanks.

    Alex.

  1. 54  Tom Simmons http://www.alacrinet.com | 10/3/2011 12:17:32 PM

    Nice work on the new license model. I think it is priced well. It makes it worth our time to sell it. Is this similar to the Utility Server in that a small company could use it to host their external web site as long as the site does not exceed 4 NSF's per server?

  1. 55  Tom Simmons http://www.alacrinet.com | 10/3/2011 12:36:19 PM

  1. 56  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 12:48:52 PM

    @51/52

    4 applications and 4 databases per application with one license...8 applications and 8 databases per application with 2 licenses. Maximum of two licenses per installation.

  1. 57  Steve Pridemore  | 10/3/2011 1:09:51 PM

    @56

    I was really hoping to be able to get to 32X32 level for $8K. Oh well thanks for clearing it up for me. And this is still an awesome offering... but still think it could be a little more flexible and just limit total number of nsf files to 16 instead of the 4X4 model... If I have a web site template that is totally contained in a single nsf, I could only host 4 instances. I just feel that takes away a little from the offering...

  1. 58  Irv Schor  | 10/3/2011 1:19:40 PM

    @27 -Ed, (1) Does each mail-in database count as 1 of the applications on the XWork server? For example, for one of our apps we have some external contractors use a mail file to review a message via a browser, but not send anything from the mail-in db. If I convert the mail-files to Mail-In Database, could we do so without a mail license (i.e. midb is for pickup only)? (2) If these users still need to authenticate against one redirect/auth database, is this allowable under the XWork Server?

  1. 59  Scott Skaife  | 10/3/2011 1:44:02 PM

    Count me in on the people that think this is a very good offering.

    I would agree with the previous posters that a per .nsf pricing or a 16 .nsf price would make more sense in future iterations of the licensing.

  1. 60  Steve Pridemore  | 10/3/2011 1:46:49 PM

    Some more clarification please...

    "you can license a second install of the IBM XWork Server on the same physical deployment"

    "Maximum of two licenses per installation."

    Does this limit my visualization options? Can I install multiple XWork server instances each with two licenses on the same physical hardware using separate VM's or do they need to be on separate physical servers?

  1. 61  Steve Pridemore  | 10/3/2011 1:50:00 PM

    @Ed,

    Sorry to keep throwing questions at you but I am going to be selling this to a client tomorrow afternoon...

  1. 62  Steve Medure  | 10/3/2011 2:39:41 PM

    Ed, are there any limitations as to what the 4 nsf files can connect to? Are these 4 nsf files able to utilize dblookups, xpage view panel, etc to other notes apps outside the XWorks server? Or is the XWork server meant to be a stand alone unit that can only work with it's 4 apps and 4 nsf files?

    Thanks,

    Steve

  1. 63  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 10/3/2011 3:01:14 PM

    I got curious by some excited reactions on Twitter. Google tells me the name is taken. { Link }

  1. 64  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 3:05:16 PM

    @63, yes, pretty much any name you can think of with an "X" will eventually lead you to an adult website. We considered this acceptable risk :-)

  1. 65  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 10/3/2011 3:16:12 PM

    I guess that triggered the spammers. :-)

  1. 66  Flemming Riis  | 10/3/2011 3:25:44 PM

    will there be a TSM license adapted to this version , so a TSM license wont start counting PVU on a non PVU entiltement

  1. 67  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 3:27:44 PM

    @65 I doubt it, they seem to be retweeting one person in particular who seems to also use a lot of planetlotus.org links...drives up a lot of the hit counts on planet lotus...

  1. 68  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 3:37:50 PM

    @66 I am not familiar with how TSM registers products to track, but we are not the only IBM software product deviating from PVUs (e.g. CEO bundles, Express, etc) so there must be a way.

  1. 69  Rick MacGuigan  | 10/3/2011 8:13:26 PM

    Ed, on the fence here so help me understand. I have LEI integrating dbs , several mailin dbs (mix of mail file types and customized apps) along with teamrooms, and several misc apps( front end, one offs, data marts. )

    Do we create a mix of server types and what is considered a best practice. Is LEI supported on this server and will the DECADM NSF count as 1 db?

  1. 70  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/3/2011 9:22:12 PM

    Rick, an existing Domino environment is not really the target for the XWork Server . You can't really mix the environments - an XWork Server is only permitted to replicate directory information from a non-XWork Server.

    I think as the product ships later this week and the license agreement is published, the constraints around NSFs and applications will be clearer.

  1. 71  Russell Maher  | 10/3/2011 9:31:40 PM

    Ed,

    Great job on looking at/listening to the needs and shepherding an excellent product offering out to meet those needs. Thank you.

    Based on all the questions, it appears interest is very high. Kudos!

  1. 72  Raphael R. Costa  | 10/3/2011 9:40:40 PM

    Nice news to push forward XPages.

    One question, is XWork Server provide a XPages Cluster environment?

    I mean, replicating the webconteiner for high avaiability of a user XPages session?

  1. 73  Alan Forbes http://www.rprwyatt.com | 10/3/2011 10:54:11 PM

    I'm very impressed at this offering and I think it represents fantastic "out of the box" thinking. Congratulations on your new baby!

  1. 74  Nick Halliwell  | 10/3/2011 11:56:52 PM

    Hi Ed,

    Congratulations on this. I think that its a reall positive move, that can only help improve the image of the whole range of Notes products.

    Its also great to know that not only do you listen to what peole say to you but you act upon it as well.

    Thanks for your positive attitude to Notes and its BP's, ISV and users

  1. 75  Peter Meuser http://itlab.de | 10/4/2011 2:26:10 AM

    Ed, is there an comprehensive online source available, which ISV is already offering commercial XPages based apps?

  1. 76  Karsten Lehmann http://blog.mindoo.com | 10/4/2011 2:43:49 AM

    Ed, I'm not sure if my questions have been answered yet (@17).

    You wrote that you also had hosting companies in mind when you were designing the license conditions of the XWork server and that the channel sales team does have the privileges for individual license agreements.

    Does my scenario (using XWork server just for user registration and XPages UI, data is read from a separate Domino server with one personal database per user, the latter server would be licensed with only one CAL which could be used as code signer of the XWork server) require negotiations with the channel sales team or is this already possible with the normal XWork license for $2000?

    The background is that we might want to provide Domino-based web applications for end users (pure web access), with free evaluation or lite membership and additional add-ons that can be purchased.

  1. 77  Tony Holder http://www.hadsl.com | 10/4/2011 4:38:42 AM

    Great news, Ed! I'm sure I heard you mention this somewhere before but I must have been mistaken as that would be pre-announcing a pre-announcment! :-)

  1. 78  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/4/2011 6:31:26 AM

    @72 you can buy two XWork installs and cluster them...

    @75 great suggestion. www.xpages.info shows some of this now but not really. Peter Janzen on my team is working on that list and we will start updating sites like xpages.info and ibm.com with that information by end of the month.

    @76 the license in and of itself does not grant anything different in terms of hosting, but we can use XWork Server as the basis for an IBM xSP agreement easily.

    As for specific scenarios, I am not comfortable answering/designing via the blog. If you could be so kind as to email me at work (ed_brill at us.ibm.com) I will have my team take a look.

    @77 one concept that certain partners do not seem to understand yet is that as the vendor, I am allowed to talk about my announcements before they happen, even if the partners or customers that we have briefed through normal vehicles remain under non-disclosure. It's good to be the vendor every so often ;-)

  1. 79  Rajeev R Menon  | 10/4/2011 7:38:43 AM

    I fear, this licensing model is going to create a lot of 4 databases application which will eventually die because it is not scalable. How about a 16 databases license (without any limit on how many applications that can be) for $2000. And then $125 for additional databases up to a maximum of 50 databases (again no limit on how many applications). My point here is limiting how many databases an application can have is a huge huge drawback of XWork Server.

  1. 80  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/4/2011 7:58:45 AM

    @79 we did our research on what kinds of ISV solutions existed in the market and how many databases they typically had. We think this fits the typical use case, and a second install can add more databases. An for an ISV looking at ASL, OEM type agreements, we have some more flexibility.

  1. 81  Lorraine Ludwicki  | 10/4/2011 8:41:25 AM

    Education for Developing XPages Applications -

    By building XPages skills, developers will be able to build new applications for Lotus Notes & Domino and IBM XWork Server. XPages also allows you to modernize and optimize your existing Notes applications while extending their reach through web and mobile access. View training @ { Link }

  1. 82  Lutz Haller http://www.lhitc.de | 10/4/2011 9:03:32 AM

    @Select ALL ;)

    First time in Lotus history I (and you all too) get the opportunity to offer custom software solutions based on Lotus technologies in heterogenous environments for a managable yearly fee .... not being limited to Domino environments and fighting the IBM Domino licensing menace.

    Nearly as nice as sliced bread ;)

    Tnx Ed.

  1. 83  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/4/2011 9:08:51 AM

    @82 thanks very much for that!!!

  1. 84  Alan Faubel http://www.conkermaths.org | 10/4/2011 9:28:00 AM

    Hi Ed,

    Excellent news. This is a great step forward.

    That said, I agree with a few of the other comments that have asked for a straight 16 nsf option rather than the 4*4 model. The company I'm working with at the minute has an application that they offer to their customers as a part of their total business proposition. Some customers want to host the app themselves and for that this new server would be ideal, if it allowed 16nsfs. Unfortunately the application consists of 11 nsfs. It could be re-designed to work with less nsfs, but it's grown up over 10+ years and re-developing it all to fit the new server isn't an option. The current Domino options have proved too expensive for quite a few customers in the past, which has lead to customers choosing other inferior options such as SharePoint. XWork is very close to addressing this need with only a slight tweak to the licence.

  1. 85  Mike McP  | 10/4/2011 9:41:07 AM

    Excellent concept!

    Even as a non-ISV, I see potential here. I often tinker with side projects, and this will allow me me to scale up to production without learning another language or paying exorbitant licensing fees...now the skills I use at work will allow me to go the path of entrepreneur if I would decide to build a large website.

    @70 As a business customer, I'm hoping the licensing isn't too restrictive with regards to how to integrate with an existing domain. For instance, we have thousands of seasonal employees, who would benefit from utilizing just a couple of our databases that handle scheduling, attendance, disciplinary action, etc. Though we're a large Domino shop, we use PHP to address that seasonal population, because of the licensing.

    Setting up a XWork server would be an interesting way to reach that population, and be a nice addition to our IBM licensing fees for everyone involved:) I guess we could setup a separate domain for the x environment, but that's more complicated than it needs to be.

  1. 86  Aravind http://www.sobis.com | 10/5/2011 12:07:10 AM

    Hi Ed,

    Looks like the new baby is completely in your hands..even the link in IBM official web site ({ Link } ) links to your blog with out any official web page from their end..is it because IBM does not want to officially talk about it? (below their standards??)

  1. 87  Stephen Hood  | 10/5/2011 6:36:55 AM

    "Re number of applications and NSFs. "

    Why not make a license variation of 1 NTF application (up to 4 templates) but allow "unlimited" NSF's per server?

    That makes it a LAMP competitor IMO.

    For privacy/security/backup/maintenance/architectural reasons :) - having 17 100mb customer nsf's with one design template is far more desirable than re-architecting apps to end up with an Exchange mailbox model :). Kind of negates the additional benefits of the platform your selling.

    It's a real strength of the platform to *easily* deploy the same design/upgrades to a swath of data/applications living in their own containers. It also dovetails much nicer with any potential hybrid offering by keeping customer data in a separate NSF.

    Maybe a scaling system of 100 NSF's standard and then x dollars per additional 100 NSF? Gives ISV a more predictable cost structure than the dreaded/non-starter PVU's - but still provides additional license revenue for IBM. Their ISV's grow customers (NSF's). IBM grow. In a connected way for both rather than a disconnected PVU black hole. Utility servers would obviously allow unlimited NT*F* templates.

    A whole category of xpage apps will never happen on the current 4x4 model or the PVU model. 1 NTF application and unlimited NSF model for the XWork server would fill that category. IMO.

    The simplified pricing is fantastic step btw. Congrats.

    Next :)

  1. 88  Rajeev R Menon  | 10/5/2011 7:31:21 AM

    @87: This is an excellent idea. Limiting by NTF seems much more reasonable to me. Paying $10,000 over a 5 year doesn't seem to be worth spending just for 4 databases if a customer needs just a single application.

  1. 89  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 10/5/2011 9:08:59 AM

    @86 I know you didn't mean for this to be offensive but it sort of reads that way.

    There is an official channel announcement here:

    { Link }

    Sometimes a human voice works better than the marketing one. This new product isn't "below standards" in any way.

    @87 I don't quite understand the one NTF thought. Are you describing a hosted/xSP kind of configuration or an actual customer deployment? If it is a hosted/xSP, then we would likely be writing custom contracts, and, as I have been saying in the most open way I can, we tend to be more creative when it comes to custom contracts.

  1. 90  Stephen Hood  | 10/6/2011 3:46:05 AM

    I guess from my perspective NTF's are for application DESIGN. NSF's are the instances of the application design that hold different data sets (say for each customer). I was hoping it would make things easier about the boundaries. Guess not :)

    So say it's ONE application set (NTF or NSF doesn't really matter I guess) - instead of the FOUR applications just announced.

    The option of restricting the application count is to then allow more NSF's (ie. customer db's). To spread the cost/improve the risk ratio with more customers out of the box. Just suits certain applications better. As long as either choice doesn't undermine Utility servers I don't see the big deal.

    Hosted. XWork Server. Frictionless licensing. Writing custom contracts with IBM is higher up than PVU's in killing new ISV growth/interest IMO. The willingness to be flexible isn't the issue. It even coming up as being needed is.

    That's part of the reason behind this announcement no? It could have been covered off doing custom contracts :) Tweaking the license can free up the contract writing time and management for better things. On both sides.

    I guess I should have said "A whole category of xpage apps will never happen on the current 4x4 model or the PVU model or writing custom contracts with IBM" :)

    Just talking out loud. Like I said previously the simpler, fixed pricing is great progress. The current announcement is about an appliance model and is more targeted at existing ISV's IMO. What I'm suggesting is to reduce the friction for expanding that audience.

  1. 91  Nazeer Aval  | 10/7/2011 2:06:44 AM

    Ed, Great news!

    Upon buying it, later what if a customer decide to switch his Outlook to Notes for email, how does xWork Server scale/trade-up to let's say a, to a Collaboration Express, possibly later to Enterprise Edition.

  1. 92  Ed Brill http://Www.edbrill.com | 10/7/2011 6:39:03 AM

    @91 that's a good use case but one we have not (yet) designed a path for. If you bring me this customer, I will happily find a way to help them on their journey ;-)

  1. 93  Sakti Das  | 10/11/2011 3:46:14 PM

    Congrats Ed! This is very exciting !! Just curious

    Is there plan to release a free community version of xwork server with limited feature and restriction on commercial use, would be a great product with free designer.

    ,also if the basic version can be offered as OS level service, with little more handle on configuration.Then it would definitely add to the developer community.

    Any thoughts ?

  1. 94  Toby Haward http://www.ad-consulting.ch | 11/12/2011 11:21:33 PM

    Good news & very nice job Ed!

  1. 95  Ted Kelly http://www.i-reductions.com | 11/12/2011 11:30:35 PM

    I'm developper and promote code that are very good and this news enjoy me Ed !

  1. 96  Igor Bubis http://www.ibsi-us.com | 11/17/2011 10:13:07 AM

    This is going to be great for a small business as $2K is reasonable amount to spend for an IBM software server with up to 16 database server and no l imitations of web users!. I would feel a bit more comfortable if the licensing allowed to use up to 16 databases in any configuration w/o limiting a number of apps.

  1. 97  Balaji Dhananjayan  | 11/19/2011 11:00:31 AM

    Great news ED !! This is very exciting !!

  1. 98  peyton mcmanus http://www.instant-tech.com | 11/23/2011 8:55:27 AM

    Excellent news Ed - and great post.

    We have several applications that we developed over the years that we have slotted for migration to a more traditional stack (spring, mysql, jquery, etc..). The XWorks server sounds like it might help solve some problems and provide an ability to deploy or app to 'non notes' shops.

    The licensing model appears to be a great idea....it might be a little limited, but we will see.

    Most of our apps also run under Tomcat (our various app engines typically run outside of the domino Java context/container). Has there been work on the XWorks server to provide a robust servlet container?

  1. 99  David (The Notes Guy in Seattle) http://thenotesguyinseattle.com | 12/30/2011 3:29:56 PM

    I have just the use for an XWork Server. I have been helping a non-Notes shop client with instructional documentation that is published in Word. It would be much better served in a web app that I already have in Notes. The only trick is that they wouldn't touch it if it had the name Lotus attached to it. Yeah, I think I can do that with XWork Server. In fact, lots of potential here to sell black box solutions in the Seattle area. Thanks Ed.

    BTW, I already see some spelling challenges of the name. Can you give us the disambiguation: XWork Server or XWorks Server. Much like the unofficial term 'R8', I think the common usage will be XWorks in practice, disirregardlessly.

  1. 100  Robert McDonald  | 2/2/2012 10:34:03 AM

    I need IBM XWork Server software for a project that I'm rolling out. Is there a way to obtain the IBM XWork Server software while the purchase order process (4 to 6 weeks) is happening? I have not been successful with IBM sending the software in good faith while the payment is being processed. Nor have I found a downloadable trail version as an interim solution.

    Regards,

    Rob

  1. 101  Robert McDonald  | 2/2/2012 1:49:35 PM

    I'm downloading the sofware now!

    Regards,

    Rob