Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Ben Rose http://www.lnug.org.uk | 4/14/2006 11:27:00 AM

   One question, will Hannover work in a citrix style thin-client environment as the current Notes client does?

   As an aside, just as we say in England when royalty dies...

   The Notes is dead, long live the Notes!

1. 2  Chris Whisonant http://cwhisonant.blogspot.com | 4/14/2006 11:41:54 AM

   I like how it was put mathematically in one of the Hannover sessions:

   Hannover >= Notes

1. 3  Bill Geimer  | 4/14/2006 12:09:32 PM

   I think that the IBM statement four years ago was correct, just misleading. The echos of that all this time later seem to ripple out of Redmond.

   As I recall (correct me if I am wrong) didn't Notes / Domino 6 come out, followed by Workplace, followed by Notes / Domino 7, followed by Workplace 2.x, to be followed by Hannover.

   And didn't things keep getting better, more usable, more open, and available to an even wider audience with every release. Isn't the same old release of Exchange sitting out there after all this time?

   (Okay, the formula was much less verbose and said just about the same thing, but I just had to say it.)

1. 4  dickstag  | 4/14/2006 12:12:16 PM

   Historically Microsoft's success has been built on two things; their product delivery and the failures of their competitors.

   And when they see an open wound in a competitor they salt it regularly and thoroughly. But even by MS standards, this one has healed a long time ago.

   Let's face it though, Al Zoller and his regime were a disaster for Notes. That dual highway story was an obvious plan to can Notes as we know and love it. Rather than a fire extinguisher, Ed was more like a guy with dust pan and broom following the elephant around.

   Any customer who falls for the MS FUD now, after the repeated investments IBM has and continues to make is an idiot.

   Idiots shouldn't be allowed to use Notes anyway..........

1. 5  Damien http://damienkatz.net | 4/14/2006 1:01:38 PM

   Steve Mills and IBM management are the reason I left IBM. It was clear when I was there that IBM didn't understand Notes strengths and the culture that surrounded it at all. Steve Mills actually came to Westford and told us all that he saw us (Iris) as the "user experience" people, and that other IBM divisions were the "backend heavy lifting" people. Could he have gotten it any more backwards? Is there anything Notes is mor maligned for than its user experience? And more lauded for than its highly reliable and fault tolerant backend?

   IBM clearly didn't get it. Upper management seemed to believe that they'll just reassign people to work on management's grand new vision of how collaborative software should work and the technologies that underpin them and then reap the handsome profits. The existing technology and culture are outdated relics and have no future. Java and DB2, that's the way! This is the thinking that results in the giant Worksplace fiasco that isn't even close to recouping investments.

   This is why everyone has been so upset with IBM in regards to Notes. While they weren't trying to kill it, upper management simply did not see a sustainable future for Notes/Domino, and I think it's because they simply didn't understand it.

   But money talks, and the fact that Notes is still profitable and Workspace no doubt has a long way to go (and likely never will turn a profit) means management started paying attention to the weird Notes guys in Westford.

1. 6  Axel  | 4/14/2006 1:12:00 PM

   But you admit that all this history of messages are a bit confusing, don't you?

   We do know the same from Microsoft. Sharepoint. Is it a portal? Is it not a portal? What is a portal?

   From time to time (f. ex. when a mayor change of a product is seen necessary) the marketing department has to mock up a story for the reasons of said change and the strategy behind it. This should be easily digestable and is not necesarily the truth.

   Now if during the change process they change minds and give the change of a product a different course the story of the marketing department needs an update. Or version 2.

   And all this confusion is due to those different versions of the javazination of notes.

1. 7  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/14/2006 1:14:46 PM

   @6 Axel, yes, I admit the history was confusing. Heck, re-reading the linked eWeek article made me uncomfortable. But things have changed dramatically in the last two+ years. Good reasons for it (See { Link } ). I can't change what I said four years ago, based on the strategy at the moment. The two-lane highway is no-more...let's move on.

1. 8  Charles Robinson  | 4/14/2006 1:54:51 PM

   Who cares about a four year old post? It's old news and doesn't need to be rehashed. If that's the best Microsoft can come up with they need to pack it up and go home.

   All kidding aside, I would urge IBM to just cut the bull and give it to us straight. Hannover merges the Notes and WMC clients. The next release post-Hannover will merge the Domino and WCS servers. At this point Notes and Domino are effectively dead as technology platforms and will be used for branding only. The underpinnings will be replaced with Eclipse on the client and Websphere on the server. That's the goal, it's plain to see, and it's annoying that IBM is pretending it's not coming.

1. 9  Charles Robinson  | 4/14/2006 1:56:12 PM

   "At this point" being the post-Hannover release... just to be clear.

1. 10  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/14/2006 2:24:28 PM

   I'm sorry, Charles, but exactly what special insight do you have into the future of Notes and Domino that leads you to these conclusions? I'm the sales leader for these products and I would think I knew if that was IBM's goal.

   If you can point me to the documentation on where IBM has said that these are the plans for post-Hannover. Or tell me why IBM would even want these to be the plans. There's no precedent in the entire history of Notes for making it "effectively dead" as a technology platform.

   And if you don't believe me, believe Burton Group.

   { Link }

   I don't understand why you think you have some special insight into what I and my colleaguges have set as goals for Notes and Domino. My personal goal is to grow the value of the Notes platform, and extend existing and future investments in it for the next decade or more. I don't get there by killing Notes /Domino as technology platform and using them for branding of something completely different. If Notes in 2010 doesn't run Notes applications built in 2005, what's the point of calling it Notes?

1. 11  Jamie  | 4/14/2006 3:37:37 PM

   To be fair to Charles, look at #7.

   Ed, you have the vision and a goal as part of your job, but your job is still to support the company direction (as it should be).

   Many of us feel the same as Charles. While Charles puts his thoughts in a refreshingly blunt manner, his summarization is the perception many of us have out here, Notes is moving to something new, blended, whatever. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but Charles is also correct that IBM needs to be a bit more straightforward on the direction. Not for us diehard Notes/Hannover/Workplace/Insert-Whatever-Name-Here people, but for your competitors, and for those executives that us diehards have to report to.

   Hannover >=Notes doesn't cut it in the board room.

1. 12  Axel  | 4/14/2006 3:41:44 PM

   Ed. I am all for "lets move on". :-)

   This "Domino is Websphere is Eclicpse or what"-confusion leads almost inevitably into a fight about words, which does not bring us any further.

   Its like discussions in senate in Star Wars I, II & III, gentlemen:

   FRUITLESS & CONFUSING

   *WARNING*: What follows might sound a bit confusing.

   Are we sure, that we know the true meaning of terms like "Websphere" or "Domino" or "Eclipse"?

   I work with all this systems and I tell you they are moving targets, anyway.

   Some examples:

   1. If I read lots of excelent stuff from jake @codestore.net, my practice of doing web development with Domino will change, even if I use the same tool.

   2. If I get heavily into Test Driven Development, I use Java IDEs like Eclipse or Netbeans very different than before.

   3. If I do understand all the weak points of EJB2.0, I have different style of WAS-architecturing/designing/programming, even if I use the same tool.

   And the tools as such change all the time in a d.r.a.m.a.t.i.c. way. EJB3.0 will be all different from EJB2.0. New version of Visual.Basic.NET has elements from Haskell functional programming language, in our department TestNG might replace Junit, etc. .

   A sentence like "Notes.Hannover" will be Eclipse, only because it uses Eclipse as a technical foundation has not much meaning.

   Eclipse is different things anyway. Its OSGnI (wrong spelling) plug-in framework. Its platform for Rich Clients. Its Java IDE. Its C++ IDE. Its JavaScript IDE. Its RDBMS tool. Its UML tool. Its platform for UML tools, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

   The database concepts of Notes will survive. The security concept. The different APIs. All this stuff from Notes remains THERE. A layer deeper we will have a different platform which is in constant evolution anyway (believe me on that, I work quite heavily with Eclipse). Of course this does change thing. But change is anywhere, anyway.

   Wasn't able to find a link, but I think it was Ted Neward who once has said something like:

   "A system only dies if you delete all installations and kill all people who have ever worked with the system".

   Because the ideas are still there.

   And with Domino.Hannover its not only ideas, but like said above: the database, the security, the apis, etc.

   In 70 years I will be over 100 years old (I am no-smoker). Maybe at that time there will be no Domino (Hannover included). So when I am going to program a system, I might remember: Oh in Domino it was like that. I will solve that in a similar way.

1. 13  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/14/2006 4:14:16 PM

   @11 please post a valid name and e-mail address or your comments will be deleted.

   "To be fair to Charles, look at #7. "

   To be fair to me, I was in a different job then.

   Look, in software, nobody can make definitive plans for years in the future. Nobody announces two releases ahead in terms of architecture, features, capabilities. It's not like anyone knows what lies beyond the "12/2007" generation for Microsoft, or three years out for SAP,etc. So, let's look at a sixteen year track record for Notes, that's a fairly solid indication of what can be expected in the future. And that track record is of no rip-and-replace migrations, application compatibility, and investment protection.

1. 14  Axel  | 4/14/2006 4:18:36 PM

   And to the gentleman from the "my boss won't understand"-fraction like Jamie with their very balanced view and who don't only see the technical aspects but also the business aspects:

   On Microsoft side it isnt different. Lots of "new" concepts for many people.

1. 15  Dave http://www.agilevisiongroup.com | 4/14/2006 4:20:34 PM

   I think that what is underlying some of the more contentionous comments here is a desire for IBM to drop any branding, and just lay it out for us on a simpler level. I'll attempt to ask the question in a way that doesn't use any names:

   Will a client exist that will be 100% backwards compatible with existing Notes apps, will have 100% of the exising features, install and deploy the same way so our deskside support staff doesn't need a learning curve, use the same .nsf files, .id files, security model, etc?

   It does boil down to "What is Notes?" It isn't the latest features, or the binary code. It is the app that fundamentally hasn't changed since the early 90s, so that someone who could install, run, and code in v2.0 could do the same today, (and learn the new features as they have time to be useful with it).

   The question is -- will the new client, whatever it may be called, change that? Could someone who hasn't touched Notes in 10 years get the post-Hannover version running and work with it and learn what is new?

   If you can answer yes to that (as you can with 7), then "Notes" is still around. If not, "Notes" has undergone a fundamental change, and then let the bickering begin as to whether or not it is still "Notes".

1. 16  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/14/2006 5:02:21 PM

   @15 I think your metric is a little unfair -- 100% of everything, then why bother with a new release?

   But - will Hannover meet most of your criteria? Yes. Same NSFs, same security model (with, perhaps, some new options), same compatibility of apps that goes all the way back to release 2. And, plainly, "Could someone who hasn't touched Notes in 10 years get the post-Hannover version running and work with it and learn what is new?" Yes.

1. 17  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 4/14/2006 5:21:53 PM

   I recently read an article "Lamborghini Miura - Rebirth on an Icon". It talks about the design goal of "combining classic lines with postmodern performance". Is the new Miura still a Miura? It still provides transportation from point A to point B, but it has more modern seats, engine, handling, and radio! Is it an improved version of the previous, or just a "new thing" that is using the former version's name only?

   Similarly, is Hannover, or Hannover + still Notes? If it is backwards compatible with today's features, but adds an improved UI, and adds new features... than I'd say it is still Notes, regardless of what technology it is built on.

   For users, customers have been asking for an improved UI, and improved methods of handling information overload. Hannover will deliver that.

   On the developer front, designers have been asking for improved features and functions, and greater levels of integration. Hannover will deliver that.

   On the administration front, customers have been asking for improvements in things like deployment and provisioning. Hannover will deliver that.

   Is Hannover still Notes? I think so.

1. 18  David Bailey  | 4/14/2006 5:36:20 PM

   @8 But, it's the 4 year old Notes that MS in competeing against. When I started with Notes in 94, I thought MS was a couple of years behind. Now, it's 4 years! I think we're gonna' lap 'em. Go IBM!

1. 19  Richard Schwartz http://www.yellowisthenewblack.com | 4/14/2006 6:38:28 PM

   This photo from the closing general session at Lotusphere reallt says it all:

   { Link }

   It's quoting me, but I was quoting Kevin Cavanaugh from his presentation on Hannover. It could not be any more clear.

   There is no other definition of what Notes and Domino are that matters. As long as Hannover and whatever comes afterward run all Notes apps, it is Notes -- and there is no indication at all from IBM that there is any intention to break compatability, withdraw features or stop enhancing functionality -- ever. Anyone who infers it from any supposed readings of writing on the wall, tea leaves, IBM marketing materials, etc., is mistaken. Anyone (8) who says Notes is dead as a technology platform while ignoring Kevin's unambiguous message is just plain wrong.

   No matter what additional technology IBM packages with it, wraps around it, or puts along side it, no matter what platforms or frameworks IBM makes it a part of, and no matter what tinkering IMB does with branding, product families, division names, etc., if it continues to run all Notes and Domino applications, then it _IS_ Notes and Domino.

1. 20  Darryl Miles  | 4/15/2006 1:44:03 AM

   Interesting article. It sounds like the Windows Vista team when and bought a Mac for their inspiration!

   See { Link }

1. 21  Charles Robinson  | 4/15/2006 2:38:40 AM

   @Ed - I don't have any special insight. I'm repeating what Bob Balaban said in his JMP205 presentation at Lotusphere. What I said regarding the future vision of Notes and Domino is nearly a verbatim quote of what he told the audience.

   To further clarify, I did not mean to insinuate I thought (or somehow knew) that existing Notes applications would not run in future Notes/Domino products, either Hannover or beyond. I know that is not the case. I simply meant that the existing Notes and Domino products as we know them will be replaced with an underpinning of newer technologies that bear only a passing resemblance to the previous generations. Notes will become an Eclipse-based product and Domino will be Websphere-based.

   What is Workplace Collaboration Services? It is Websphere Application Server and Websphere Portal, with a specialized set of portlets running on that platform. Domino will be the same kind of thing: an add-on to Websphere providing specialized functionality. This integration into other platforms is what I meant about them becoming brands. I did not mean that they were dead.

   I don't think the upcoming changes are a bad thing. The Notes and Domino platforms have served us well, and there are parts that are still relevant and highly functional. However they are extremely long in the tooth and need a substantial overhaul to make them competitive with more current tools. Hannover is a welcome breath of fresh air but all we have so far are press releases and screenshots so it's hard to get too excited.

   Personally I would welcome a wholesale rip and replace. Any software product that lasts long enough reaches the watershed event of its end of life. At that point it is significantly overhauled, which sometimes does not leave a migration path. Apple did that with it's launch of OS X. Again, it's not a bad thing. I would rather go through an application rewrite or keep a special server around to handle older applications than deal with a 20 year legacy of bloat that has little relevance.

   To put it another way, if you (IBM/Lotus) have to choose between giving me the features my users need today or maintaining support for the features they needed 10 years ago I say give me the new stuff and let me figure out how to support the older applications. Don't protect me from innovation, let me choose between new functionality and backwards compatability. Give me an F5 key that refreshes!

   I hope that clarifies what I meant by my early post.

   @17 - I have neither seen nor heard anything whatsoever about Domino Designer or Domino Administrator for Hannover. Do you have any information you can share?

1. 22  Hubertus Amann www.siriusonline.de | 4/15/2006 3:40:27 AM

   @Charles

   "Give me an F5 key that refreshes!"

   This was fixed in 2004 - by Microsoft !!!

   { Link }

1. 23  Charles Robinson  | 4/15/2006 9:37:45 AM

   @22 - I responded in e-mail.

1. 24  david racicot  | 4/15/2006 12:34:41 PM

   Will I be able to put one CD in for my server and upgrade it to Hanover in 20 minutes? Will I then be able to put another CD in and update my 3 clients to 1. Hanover Client, 2. Hanover Designer and 3. Hanover Administrator in 20 minutes? Can I refer to Hanover as R8?

1. 25  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/15/2006 1:03:43 PM

   @24 this level of detail is never available at this stage of a product's development cycle... what if it takes 25 minutes? what if it is a DVD instead of a CD?

   As for version number, no announcement on that yet. But it's definitely still Lotus Notes.

1. 26  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 4/15/2006 1:38:08 PM

   @24 - What if you did not have to put a CD in to upgrade the clients? What if your server provisioned the client to your machine? What if you were even able to control which features and functions groups/classes of users get?

1. 27  david racicot  | 4/15/2006 3:16:28 PM

   My point is that through the vast history of Lotus Notes installation and upgrade has always been a piece of cake. One disk, one install and voila I have everything I need. I would like this to be the case moving forward also.

1. 28  Henning Heinz  | 4/15/2006 3:33:35 PM

   I think nobody questions that all Notes apps will work in Hannover but that is just a backward compatible statement. I am still missing a forward looking statement. Making my rather broken Domino apps work in Hannover might not be enough. I need more features, I want years old bugs fixed, I would like to have html mails work, improved mime support, more control over html, jsp support and I want to use the full javascript model in a client application.

   What is going to happen with lotusscript and formula? Probably nothing but the message that Microsoft is selling is not a bad one. If you have to learn new things why not start with .net (you know nobody is getting fired ...)?

   There are companies that currently have pressure to move to a Microsoft platform. The new UI will help but I still surprised how little companies have not yet seen Hannover screenshots. I am sure that everyone can imagine what Microsoft is going to sell as Hannover if the client is not well prepared. It is fat, bloated with exorbitant hardware requirements and all your IT people will need to become DB/2 and Java experts.

   Then there are people like Gary telling that the move to Microsoft is very simple. I am not saying that this is true but Microsoft is not bad at selling their products.

   If Hannover means Workplace done smart it can become a success, if it means Domino becomes the same bloated beast that Workplace currently is then I really think that there is a problem.

   But if I may have an Easter wish that would be that anonymous http access would not be excluded from collaboration express licenses anymore(but that is off-topic).

1. 29  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 4/15/2006 6:58:44 PM

   So Mr Robichaux thinks he can get some mileage out of the perceived direction of four years ago. He might do well to remember that four years ago Exchange's direction was to be based on SQL Server (i.e. Kodiak). Where is that now? Ooh, things change in four years. Visions are re-aligned, strategies evolve. Microsoft should know that, and they should also mention that features get dropped. Four years in the Internet age is a long, long time (especially if you're waiting for a new version of SQL Server).

   What's the next but one version of Exchange going to be? We're hearing it's going to be another rip and replace. One would surmise that a big architecture change would be required to fix some of the inherent problems Exchange has today that aren't fixed in Exchange 12 (active / active clustering anyone?). But I don't intend to speak on Microsoft's behalf - let them tell us their roadmap.

1. 30  Peter Wilson  | 4/15/2006 9:33:56 PM

   Also, which we're talking about Exchange. One thing to remember is that every Exchange server will need to be re-installed for the next release (it will be x64 only). You can't do an in-place upgrade from Windows 32bit to the x64 release.

   A significant proportion of Exchange servers will need NEW HARDWARE which is x64 capable. A larger number of organisations will be running Exchange on servers used for years, maybe even from Exchange 5.5.

   The effort to migrate to the next release of Exchange will be significant and likely to be as slow as those who went from Exchange 5.5 to 2000/2003. The effort of putting in an Active Directory infrastructure slowed down many customers, and there's a lot of effort putting in these new systems when you don't really get that much of a benefit. ie. it's still doin' e-mail!

   I agree with @28 on 'I need more features, I want years old bugs fixed, I would like to have html mails work, improved mime support'...beyond the new UI in Hannover, I'd like to see a bunch of little Notes annoyances fixes in the next release. One that bugs me (probably not anyone else - grin) is a better Undo.

   Pete

1. 31  Axel  | 4/15/2006 10:54:37 PM

   @28: Your comments about .NET suprise me a bit. Weren't you telling 2 years ago that nobody cares about .NET?

   From my point of view, Lotus should tackle the reform process without taking too much care about what the community is going to say at first.

   I don't see it as a good reform strategy to obverve long & fine grained to-be-preserved lists too closely.

1. 32  Axel  | 4/16/2006 12:51:13 AM

   I am pro agile, lean, feedback and all.

   But here people are critizicing things they haven't installed, which is hilarious.

   Also Notes.Hannover is primarily for end users in organizations and not for long time Lotus specialists.

   The money for development is spent for those people to work well with the platform.

   Notes specialists don't own the product.

   I develop growing distrust for people who are allways very fast with judgement. I wish there to be more analysis and less loud-mouth judgement.

1. 33  Henning Heinz  | 4/16/2006 3:02:07 PM

   Axel please let me know what you smoked today. I want that too. Nobody here has been criticising Hannover but the topic is "Notes FUD-making or not?"

   Yes the message is much better, a lot of information is already published, we have screenshots from Hannover that look very promising. And still Microsoft is telling Domino customers what I said.

   This is not even my opinion because as I work on my own I have nothing against a certain level of complexity (which is good for my business).

   As long as some questions do not have an answer yet Microsoft will answer them (and even if the answers are already made you cannot be sure that Microsoft is not ignoring them). I do not expect Microsoft to play fair in all manners. No, there are no mass migrations to Exchange and I think Microsoft has a much harder job now than two years before but this does not mean that a good thing cannot be improved.

1. 34  Richard Schwartz http://www.yellowisthenewblack.com | 4/16/2006 7:08:42 PM

   @27: re: "My point is that through the vast history of Lotus Notes installation and upgrade has always been a piece of cake"

   I'm afraid that's not what I remember at all from the early days of Notes. It was a beast to install in R3. If I remember correctly, it consisted of 33 diskettes, and that was the easy part! Getting the server OS -- usually OS/2 -- running was an ordeal in itself, and then getting the network configuration right, installing device drivers and editing various config files for the network driver stacks, dealing with modems and all sorts of crazy things related to whatever NOS you were running, and then going through much of the same on clients in order to be able to get them to connect to the server... that could take anywhere from minutes to days, depending on the environment. Of course, much of it wasn't Notes' fault -- it was running in operating environments that were downright primitive compared to what we have today but the experience is the point -- and the experience was absolutely not "a piece of cake".

   Now, this was not a good thing, and I certainly don't want Hannover to be as much of a beast to install as Notes 3, but my point is that people went through a lot of pain to get the benefits of Notes 3, and between improvements in operating systems and the emergence of TCP/IP as the universally available network protocol, and a heck of a lot of work on Lotus' part, things got a lot better in R4, and better still in R5. It won't kill us, and it won't kill Notes if there's a little extra complexity involved in installing Hannover. A CD or two over and above what we're used to, a few extra screens of configuration information to go through, etc., will be ok by me.

   What I'm much more concerned about is the memory footprint.

1. 35  Richard Schwartz http://www.yellowisthenewblack.com | 4/16/2006 7:08:43 PM

   @27: re: "My point is that through the vast history of Lotus Notes installation and upgrade has always been a piece of cake"

   I'm afraid that's not what I remember at all from the early days of Notes. It was a beast to install in R3. If I remember correctly, it consisted of 33 diskettes, and that was the easy part! Getting the server OS -- usually OS/2 -- running was an ordeal in itself, and then getting the network configuration right, installing device drivers and editing various config files for the network driver stacks, dealing with modems and all sorts of crazy things related to whatever NOS you were running, and then going through much of the same on clients in order to be able to get them to connect to the server... that could take anywhere from minutes to days, depending on the environment. Of course, much of it wasn't Notes' fault -- it was running in operating environments that were downright primitive compared to what we have today but the experience is the point -- and the experience was absolutely not "a piece of cake".

   Now, this was not a good thing, and I certainly don't want Hannover to be as much of a beast to install as Notes 3, but my point is that people went through a lot of pain to get the benefits of Notes 3, and between improvements in operating systems and the emergence of TCP/IP as the universally available network protocol, and a heck of a lot of work on Lotus' part, things got a lot better in R4, and better still in R5. It won't kill us, and it won't kill Notes if there's a little extra complexity involved in installing Hannover. A CD or two over and above what we're used to, a few extra screens of configuration information to go through, etc., will be ok by me.

   What I'm much more concerned about is the memory footprint.

1. 36  Giulio www.buzznotes.com.au | 4/16/2006 8:31:59 PM

   @30. Peter, I hear your pain. Rip-And-Replace (RAR) of H/W exposes existing Exchange sites to re-assessment and conversion options. If there has to be a total Server replacement to upgrade Exchange, that includes restoration of the existing configuration, and then testing. The cost of your server replacement would be small compared to the labour...

   Giulio

1. 37  Steven Joseph  | 4/17/2006 9:52:27 AM

   Ed, I have to stand back and look at this from a different point of view. It seems a lot of folks get the "impression" that IBM is about to do what Lotus did to all their cc:Mail customers in the mid 90's. We were cc:mail from v2.0 for DOS until cc:Mail and we had to move to Notes as MS could not migrate our data and keep our mailing lists, archives and cc:Mail BBs in sync during the migration (seems like nothing has changed!). Granted the product was outpaced by technology, could not handle the size and breadth of email requirements at large multi-site organizations, and was based on DOS 3.x file & record locking, but it was a great product!!! Slowly though we started to see fewer and fewer sessions at Lotusphere and subtly we were "pushed" over to Lotus Notes Mail. At R4.5, Notes mail was not superior to cc:Mail and the C&S was, well let's just say until R5.03 we kept our old stand-alone C&S system.

   So over the past few years, we've started to see the same thing with WebSphere a beginning a few Lotusphere's back. Fewer and fewer Domino sessions it seemed. The handwriting was on the wall so to speak. NSFs would be moving to DB2, thin clients were in, fat was out, dual road maps with arrows everywhere.... After the backlash, we watch IBM is try to reel all that back in and emphasize a different strategy , but please just know that are folks out there who are gun-shy from pervious IBM forced migrations. It is going to take more than tough talk. I'm not sure that saying Lotus Notes is a subset of WebSphere is helping much. Sounds like an amoeba swallowing up food particles. You job is to convince us that Lotus Notes is not a food vacuole about to be digested by WebSphere. (See we DID learn something in 7th grade biology!)

   On the lighter side I have to joke each time new versions of Notes & Domino are rolled out as I see more and more of the features that cc:Mail had many years ago. A few MAJOR cc:Mail features still have not made it in the Notes/Domino. Maybe in Hanover +1? Yes, I bet you could write them all in Lotus Script or the coding methodology de jour, but please don't call tech support after that... Among other things why are UNREAD marks RED???? On the phone it can get confusing ....Customer: "All my unread messages are read." HelpDesk: "Are your unread messages R-E-A-D or R-E-D?" Lets go back to BLUE ! We actually made them BLUE after our cc:Mail migration (seamless as it was) until we upgraded to R5. SCOS though you can toss, that was a bad idea in cc:Mail and bad idea in Exchange and a bad idea in Domino. Let's hope it is a bad idea in WebSphere too!

   I kinda joke at every new release

1. 38  Steven Joseph  | 4/17/2006 9:54:50 AM

   Ed: Can you update you blog to add an edit or preview feature? Doesn't have to be as fancy as Carl's live preview. But sometimes we don't see our stupid typos until we post!

1. 39  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/17/2006 10:06:52 AM

   @37 "saying Lotus Notes is a subset of WebSphere is helping much."

   Who is saying that? Lotus Notes is part of the WORKPLACE brand family, but not WebSphere.

   Steve, we've talked, you know my background in this business started with cc:Mail too. That was a migration, plain and simple. What's happening with Notes is not.

   PS Unread in "Hannover" are boldfaced, not red.

1. 40  Craig Wiseman  | 4/17/2006 10:16:15 AM

   @34 (&35...)

   >> What I'm much more concerned about is the memory footprint.

   Amen!

1. 41  Craig Wiseman  | 4/17/2006 10:21:14 AM

   @2

   To be more detailed, my memory is that there was a slide:

   Hannover = Notes

   and the comments covered why/how it will run all Notes apps and BE the Notes we know.

   Then there was a slide:

   Hannover > Notes

   and the comments covered the cool new stuff that it will deliver IN ADDITION to what Notes 7.x has now.

   Then the slide you mention:

   Hannover >= Notes

   and the comments covered the fact that, just as Notes 7 had more stuff than Notes 6 had more stuff than Notes 5 had more stuff than Notes 4 had more stuff than Notes 3 had more stuff than Notes 2 had more stuff than Notes 1, Hannover is the nextGen of Notes, not a different product.

1. 42  Charles Robinson  | 4/17/2006 11:15:19 AM

   @39 - I know I said I'd shut up, but I have to comment on this. Workplace runs on Websphere, that's a published fact. Extending this a bit it's safe to say that Workplace is a subset (technologically speaking) of Websphere. Notes/Domino is a subset of Workplace, again a published fact. Hannover creates a single unified client for Notes and Workplace, again a published fact. So completing the equation, it stands to reason that Domino is will be a subset of Websphere. From a branding/marketing/PR standpoint it may not be, but that gets into splitting semantic hairs.

   Brand it whatever you want, market it however you want, but underneath it all, Domino is going to be Websphere. Stop pretending it's not coming, embrace it and help us get excited about it. In my opinion all the denial about Domino becoming part of Websphere is helping to create FUD. As I said originally: just give it to us straight.

1. 43  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/17/2006 11:27:36 AM

   I just don't think that's analogous, Charles. By that logic Domino is becoming a subset of Linux or Windows, too.

1. 44  Axel  | 4/17/2006 11:33:29 AM

   What I am much more concerned about isn't memory footprint but contention & scalability.

   @33: Those personal attacks shouldn't be part of a serious debate. Not that I care much about it. But other person might do, if you attack that personal way.

1. 45  Steven Joseph  | 4/17/2006 11:58:01 AM

   Sorry Ed, I guess I got all the marketing stuff mumbled in my head. I did really did mean to say "Lotus Notes is a subset of Workplace", not WebSphere. So search/replace WebShere with Workplace. (See... give us edit or preview)

   I guess that is either an indication of my stupidity or a confused customer based on several doses of confusing marketing?. Take your pick... (No we won't be reporting the final votes.)

   Hope my point was not lost. We've been through it before, don't want to go through it again. And a LOT of people think we're going to get it again. STILL!!! Even if cc:Mail was a planned migration, it felt like a forced abandonment to many.

   I have a lot of friends in marketing, but I guess we just need to clarify what your definition of "BRAND" is... To many of us non-marketing folks, some think it is just subjective shuffling.

   Not that we don't trust you Ed, because we do. But we've seen good folks come at IBM and good folks go. LOTS(!!!!) of good guys and ladies from LPS and FFS.

1. 46  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/17/2006 1:00:09 PM

   you mean FSS not FFS, right? :)

1. 47  Charles Robinson  | 4/17/2006 1:36:33 PM

   @Ed - No, it's not the same thing. I can run Workplace/Websphere/Domino on a number of platforms. But I can't possibly run Workplace without Websphere. Subset was probably the wrong term, superset seems more applicable since it runs on top of Websphere. It doesn't really matter.

1. 48  Axel  | 4/17/2006 2:22:49 PM

   @33 :-)

   First you describe in @28 you own apps as "rather broken".

   Then you declare yourselve in @33 in favour of "increased complexity". You think your allready broken apps will become more robust, if the platform gets more complex?

   No. Javanization of Notes is actually to simplify the platform.

   Might sound absurd for a lot of ears here.

   But thats actually the goal.

   In other areas Java allready simplified IT.

   IBM might deliver or not.

   Axel

1. 49  Steven Joseph  | 4/17/2006 2:34:30 PM

   Yes, Field Support Services. I can't type and I'm lysdexic as well!!! One more vote for preview/edit mode (well, that is 3 votes from me!)

1. 50  Dan Sickles  | 4/17/2006 2:42:33 PM

   Isn't Hannover the Notes client? Yes, it uses the Workplace Client Technology and probably has some of the websphere stack for offline but does purchasing Workplace give you the ability to do a Notes client install? If not then it's not a subset of Workplace. It depends on Workplace just like it depends on the nsf dlls etc. If purchasing Notes/Domino doesn't allow me to run a websphere/portal/workplace server then it's not a superset either. The way I see it, there is some overlap. Will the overlap increase over time? I hope so.

1. 51  Philip Storry http://www.not-so-rapid.com | 4/17/2006 2:49:50 PM

   @47 Charles,

   I beg to differ. It matters immensely.

   The problem with IBM's marketing in the past has been (and continues to be) the confusion between brands and technologies.

   We screamed when Domino/Notes was to become Websphere because Websphere doesn't have the technological capabilities to do what Domino/Notes does.

   Workplace uses similar technologies to Websphere, yes. Unfortunately, Workplace is both a product AND a brand. Notes is part of the brand, not part of the product's technology.

   IBM has done a reasonable job in clearing this up, but haven't yet gotten round to clarifying the one last sticking point - that there is both a Workspace brand AND a Workspace product. They need to do that, but that's all.

   You're thinking purely technologically. IBM's marketing/strategy people were thinking brands. Domino/Notes fits into the Workplace BRAND very well, because it tries to solve the same kinds of problems.

   Personally, I'd like to see a change to the brand name, so that this confusion can't possibly remain. However, I understand that this can't be done overnight, and IBM keep saying the positive things that they should be saying about Domino/Notes, so I'm not going to rock the boat too strongly. :-)

1. 52  Jim Bernardo  | 4/17/2006 4:44:41 PM

   @8 and @42, Charles, I agree. The reason we (Microsoft) always bring up the Steve Mills interview is simply to point out that IBM has pursued essentially the very strategy Steve outlined (in broad brushstrokes) in 2002. Yes, Ed, the particulars are different, and yes, Ed, you can put, as Paul put it, whatever lipstick on that you want to, but you strain credibility by trying to call it something other than what it is, technologically. Steve said IBM was going to do a major renovation of Notes. They (you) have. Steve said IBM was going to throw out the whole infrastructure and revamp the data storage. Well, OK, kinda, Steve, but not all the way so much (NSF/DB2?). Steve said "[Notes is] fundamentally built on the Notes file system, which is a late '80s design point...[so]...you've got to make some deeper underlying changes." You have! In fairness, I'm not saying it's either good or bad -- IBM makes the technology choices that are right for its business, and customers get to choose whether they want that, or something else. Clearly, most of your readers see value in it. Microsoft takes a different approach to collaboration, and one which many customers find appealing, judging by market success. It's not inferior because it's not Notes, or superior because it's not Workplace. It's different, and comes from a different approach to software than IBM's. For the customers who choose it, it has value. That doesn't make them stupid, nor do those decisions get made on emotion -- to suggest that, Ed, as you have a number of times, is frankly insulting to those customers who've chosen to move to Microsoft from Notes. They run their businesses on technology, and they've chosen the technology platform they believe will best meet their needs. They couldn't be too stupid -- they chose Notes at some point! You may disagree with their choice, but implying that their decisions were not made on sound business logic, but rather on emotions is saying that they're not smart business people. Well, that pretty much speaks for itself...

   @5, it's also important to note that Damien is not alone...Ed loves to scorn the legion of us who left Lotus and joined Microsoft, but (most of us) didn't leave because we were evil and looking to satisfy a longlasting desire to join the Evil Empire...instead, we left for similar reasons to those Damien describes. Again, not saying we're good and IBM is evil, but simply pointing out that a bunch of people who built Notes (and no, Ed, I'm not passing myself off as one of them) and marketed and sold and supported it (yes, I AM one of those) looked at what IBM was planning for the product we loved and had nurtured, and voted with our feet. Now, to dickstag's point (@4) a huge number of us left in the Zollar years, and yeah, that was pretty much an unmitigated disaster from the perspective of those of us who'd been at Lotus for years, but it helps to remember that Al (at least at that time) was the guy IBM sent in to dismantle things. He did it to OS/2, he did it to the Network Computing Software Division at IBM, he tried (and mostly failed) to do it at Tivoli. There was no reason to expect anything different from him at Lotus. Things have changed since then, IBM's strategy (at least as it's presented) is much more cogent than it was four years ago, and so now, let's let both vendors deliver on their strategies, and let the marketplace decide...

1. 53  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/17/2006 6:43:02 PM

   This is really funny.

   While Microsoft can't execute on their strategies in this space ("Kodiak", "WinFS", etc.), they suggest that IBM can and that this is a bad thing. I can't stop laughing.

   You also leave out the forward/backward compatibility bit that offers customers the ability to gradually adopt new features, capabilities, and architectures. Want to run 32-bit? No problem. Want to use apps from four or five years ago? Still not a problem. IBM isn't pushing these IT decisions on customers... and significant improvements in Domino 7 have little or nothing to do with things like NSF/DB2. That's one improvement, there are fifty other relevant and useful ones, and they advance the existing NSF architecture. So fine, we're delivering innovation while protecting customer investments. I'll take that criticism.

   As for the suggestion that these decisions get made on emotion -- I am merely quoting Gartner, Jim. (See this report: { Link } if that link doesn't work, it's report G00136165 and if an IBM customer would like a copy, contact me). And from a few of the deals I've been involved in, where committees have given the nod to IBM for technical, cost, and migration and yet been overruled by CEOs/CIOs, well, yeah, I'd have to say emotion and politics play a role.

   As for Jim's comment on Damien's comment...it's also important to note that Jim and many others who are former Loti at Microsoft didn't -leave- IBM for Microsoft...they ended up there. Have things changed since then? Yes. There are more developers working on Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino -- and yes, I mean the core products -- now than then. We did a 200 city launch tour for Lotus Notes/Domino 7, with over 21,000 people attending -- numbers not seen since the Super.Human.Software R5 tour. And some of those people have even come back to Lotus.

   I don't scorn you for moving on with your career -- just for when some MS people represent that their connection to Lotus from 3+ years ago somehow is relevant to what is going on with Lotus going forward.

1. 54  Jim Bernardo  | 4/17/2006 8:04:51 PM

   Ed, Ed, Ed, I'm just shaking my head. You really could have a fabulous career as a PR guy.

   Hannover was supposed to be a "7.X release". Now it's 8. 8 was supposed to ship in 2006. Now it's 2007. What happened to DB2 as an alternate back end in R7? What happened to Single Copy Object Store? SIP support for Sametime was announced when I was still at Lotus, and I left 6 years ago, and is FINALLY being implemented in ST 7.5.

   On the Gartner report, yes, Ed, I've actually read it. You ought to. Gartner also says in that report that IBM has been losing two to three percentage points market share to Exchange each year for the last several years, and that they don't expect that to change through the end of the decade, and that IBM's dilemma "is further exacerbated by the immaturity of the Workplace collaboration products." They don't say that people are making the decision based on emotions, simply that they shouldn't. Duh.

   Ed, there are plenty of stones that could be thrown in both directions. Software's as much art as science. As development progresses, plans change. Things that were going to make it into one release land in another. God knows that NEVER has happened with Notes. Kodiak as a codename is dead, in much the same way that Walden (remember that, Ed?) never became a product, but much of the technology that was planned for it eventually made it into other Lotus products. WinFS is very much alive, thank you. Edge is very much alive. Many of the things you so lose to throw stones at in your cute little Lotusphere session we actually enjoy listening to, because it says something about how little attention you're actually paying to what Microsoft is doing.

   As for backward compatibility, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about that. Yeah, you can still run an R1 app in R7, as long as you don't compact it and turn it into the R7 on-disk structure. Technology changes, Ed. I don't have antilock brakes on my 1982 Mercedes, or airbags, either, and Mercedes didn't offer me the option to retrofit them. Instead, if I want modern features, I get to buy the newer model. My old one still works, still drives like a car, I can still get tires for it, I can still fill the tank at the same gas stations, they're all (reasonably) backward compatible, though I can't get leaded gas for my 1960s era vehicles anymore, but if I want modern features, I buy a modern car.

   I don't think any of us have represented our past Lotus careers as somehow relevant to what's going on there now. Rather, those of us who have actually worked at both (and in many of our cases, all three) companies can uniquely speak with some perspective based on that experience, that those who have only worked for Microsoft OR IBM OR Lotus cannot. And most of us didn't "end up" here -- we made a conscious choice to come here, so let's be clear about that. Many of the "luminaries" of Notes, the people with the gray matter that created the product, people not just like Ray, but Charlie Kaufman, Paul Haverstock, the guy who orchestrated the acquisitions that resulted in Sametime, Barry Briggs, an architect behind many of the most interesting technologies developed at Lotus, yes, Gary Devendorf, even though you've gone from a fan to hating him, too...these people (including Ray!) made a conscious decision to come to a company where technology innovation was more valued than they believed it was at IBM. Right or wrong, the point is we all chose to be here -- this was not a last stop on the lonely hearts express.

   Keep it up, Ed, you give us all a lot of amusement....

1. 55  Jim Bernardo  | 4/17/2006 8:08:02 PM

   ...in my third paragraph, that's supposed to be "many of the things you so LOVE to throw stones at..."

1. 56  Jim Bernardo  | 4/17/2006 8:19:34 PM

   Oh, and one more thing...

   I don't know which customers you're talking to, but I haven't talked to one yet who's made an emotional or political decision about Lotus vs. Microsoft. Yes, there are certainly cases in which a new CEO or CIO or CTO comes in with a (strong) opinion about moving to Microsoft, but my experience is quite the opposite of yours. In my experience, the people who work for them who have been responsible for the Notes implementation push back, hard, and put the onus on us to prove value to them. We win some and we lose some, but there's been no cakewalk based on politics or emotion in any of the deals I've been involved in. Maybe I've missed something...wish they were as easy as a CEO saying it, and having it happen!

1. 57  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/17/2006 8:59:50 PM

   Were that true, Jim, it would be interesting to see MS do "follow up" case studies on some of your wins, like Accenture. I saw a slide in Eric Ashby's webcast a few weeks ago that implied they had sunset their Notes apps in 2005. Guess what -- they're still issuing Notes clients and IDs for thousands of apps still in place.

   As for the stuff in #54, consumer industries are not at all the same as B2B, and it's an unreasonable comparison. Imagine if Boeing went to the airlines and airports and said, oh, sorry, you want that DC9 from the 60s to support electronic glidescope? Sorry, you'll have to buy a new plane. Yeah, right. Or if my old company, US Robotics, had been put in a position to buy a new factory to build PCMCIA modems. Or in the case of consumer electronics, if the cell phone infrastructure needed to be upgraded every three months when new handset models come out (GSM is what, now going on ten+ years?). You guys at Microsoft still have too much of a consumer mindset.

   I love the dodge about "Kodiak" and how because the codename is no longer in use, it's not worth discussing. Paul Flessner's statements in 2001 (and Ballmer's in 2000) about building Exchange on SQL Server even more off base than whatever I think about the aforementioned Mills interview. You couldn't do it, plain and simple -- why else would you keep going with the memory leaks and SCOS challenges of Jet in Exchange. (SCOS in Notes? It's there, nobody uses it. Not sure what you're after there). and as for whether 7.5 or 8 or whatever the version number (not yet announced) for "Hannover" is, it was announced without a ship date, and more recently we've said simply 2007. Anyway.

   I'm glad I'm providing a source of amusement... I'm sure I'm bookmarked right behind Mini-MSFT on many of your browsers. Competition is a good thing.

1. 58  Jim Bernardo  | 4/17/2006 10:01:14 PM

   Re: having you bookmarked, don't flatter yourself, Ed.

   As for competition being a good thing, well, there's finally one thing we can agree on! Have a good night.

1. 59  Jim Bernardo  | 4/17/2006 10:09:59 PM

   Oh, by the way, on Accenture, why don't you invite them to come present at some upcoming event about their transition from Notes? Most of the customers I know who have heard them speak about it have found it very informative...

1. 60  Nathan T. Freeman  | 4/18/2006 3:45:39 AM

   @52 - "You may disagree with their choice, but implying that their decisions were not made on sound business logic, but rather on emotions is saying that they're not smart business people."

   Actually, it's simply saying that their incentive structure might not accurately reflect acting in the best interests of the enterprise. If a CIO does something like a zero-ROI email migration (from any platform to any other platform,) then it might look good on his resume or net him treatment from a vendor, while being nothing but an unaccountable sink-hole for the company.

   Few enterprises measure ROI on IT investments with any accuracy whatsoever. So the incentives on those managers are completely different.

1. 61  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 4/18/2006 3:59:13 AM

   @54 - Jim, the car analogy doesn't work. You trade in an old car and buy a new one. You get out of one driving seat and into another (possibly move some stuff out of the trunk). That process doesn't affect thousands of people or take several months, and buying a new car (even a Merc) is a lot cheaper.

   @56 - it happens quite often. We spend a long time proving Notes / Domino superiority to the people supposedly making the decision (and winning that decision) only to have the CIO / CEO over-rule it based on no relevant information. Therefore Microsoft shouldn't feel proud of everything they win. However, we're taking enough messaging and collaboration business from Microsoft to make my daily struggle against the huge marketing presence worthwhile. So if you want to bury your head in the FUD sand and pretend it's not happening, go right ahead... suits me fine.

1. 62  Rod Stauffer  | 4/18/2006 4:48:51 AM

   @54 - I know I should just let this slide...but where to begin...

   ---

   "Hannover was supposed to be a "7.X release". Now it's 8."

   Wrong. Publicly, a specific version hasn't been anounced by IBM...yet. As far as I know, closest they've come was at Lotusphere 2006 where they stated it could be 7.5, or could be 8.0. Number simply hasn't been announced at this point. So, for you to claim otherwise, that must be inside information... Although I have a hard time believing the product version numbers for Hannover were mapped out in 2000... Regardless, what's the difference? Hannover is the next version. Whatever the number.

   ---

   "8 was supposed to ship in 2006. Now it's 2007."

   Huh? With the release of 6.0, IBM indicated that major releases, with an alternating server then client focus, would be released every 18 months. So, lets see how close they've come to the stated path:

   - 6.0 - October 2002 (primarily server focus)

   - 6.5 - September 2003 (primarily client focus)

   - 7.0 - October 2005 (primarily server focus)

   OK, I'll concede the 6.5 to 7.0 interval was 2 years. But 6.0 to 7.0 was three years. Seems IBM met their target. Now, how many times has that happened for Exchange in those years? What investment has Microsoft demonstrated to their user base? Yet Notes is dead? Please.

   Back to Hannover. According to the schedule from a couple years ago, Hannover's release should be ND7 (October 2005) + 18 months... Seems 2007 is in the ballpark...

   ---

   "What happened to DB2 as an alternate back end in R7?"

   Limited support is available for qualified customers. From my perspective, this means they're restricting it to customers with existing in-house DB2 experience, in order to somewhat limit the support issues until it's more solid. While it didn't make full support in 7.0.x, that's much better than the track record of Exchange data store announcements vs. Exchange data store delivery...

   ---

   "What happened to Single Copy Object Store?"

   Been there since 4.0. Not sure why anyone would opt for the single point of failure that SCOS creates...but it's there as an option in Domino already.

   ---

   "SIP support for Sametime was announced when I was still at Lotus, and I left 6 years ago, and is FINALLY being implemented in ST 7.5."

   Uh, there is a SIP connector in Sametime. Has been for a while. Sure, 7.5 will do SIP much better. That's a good thing. Your point?

   ---

   "Many of the things you so love to throw stones at in your cute little Lotusphere session we actually enjoy listening to, because it says something about how little attention you're actually paying to what Microsoft is doing."

   I see... Judging by the accuracy of your statements in this thread, your focus on IBM is so much clearer. Right. And of course you're not propping up your arguments based on your prior experience at Lotus 6 years ago. Because you don't do that sort of thing. Right.

   ---

   "As for backward compatibility, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about that."

   Figures. Sidestep one you'd lose hands-down.

   ---

   "Yeah, you can still run an R1 app in R7, as long as you don't compact it and turn it into the R7 on-disk structure."

   Blatantly wrong. OK, I don't have Version 1 sitting around to test. Point is, the ODS is only relevant to the version accessing that disk. So what if the R1 app is compacted to D7 ODS? If Domino 7 compacted it, Domino 7 is the one accessing that disk. There might be a chance that Domino 7 can open Domino 7 ODS...

   ---

   "Technology changes, Ed. I don't have antilock brakes on my 1982 Mercedes, or airbags, either, and Mercedes didn't offer me the option to retrofit them. Instead, if I want modern features, I get to buy the newer model. My old one still works, still drives like a car, I can still get tires for it, I can still fill the tank at the same gas stations, they're all (reasonably) backward compatible, though I can't get leaded gas for my 1960s era vehicles anymore, but if I want modern features, I buy a modern car."

   Nicely done. Once again proving the inadequacy of a car analogies. Sure, the admin/driver can switch cars relatively easily...but where's your *data*? Not to mention the consumer/enterprise difference Ed already mentioned.

   ---

   "I don't think any of us have represented our past Lotus careers as somehow relevant to what's going on there now."

   Uh, you just did...in this very post. Pointing out items that were supposedly planned during your employment at Lotus that are supposedly still missing in action. Nice.

   ---

   "Rather, those of us who have actually worked at both (and in many of our cases, all three) companies can uniquely speak with some perspective based on that experience, that those who have only worked for Microsoft OR IBM OR Lotus cannot."

   How convenient. The great unwashed couldn't possibly understand. Or is that perspective supposed to make you more balanced? Less biased? Please. Your post seems to be classic FUD, so the perspective isn't all that unique.

   ---

   "And most of us didn't "end up" here -- we made a conscious choice to come here, so let's be clear about that."

   OK, but on a few ocassions--even in the press--the transitions have been painted as MS plucking talent from IBM. In that light, it is relevant that most didn't go directly from one to the other. BTW, Ed has always been clear that Charlie Kaufman is one exception--Ed's never disputed that Charlie went directly from IBM to MS. The reason he switched doesn't exactly match your statement though...

   ---

   "Many of the "luminaries" of Notes, the people with the gray matter that created the product, people not just like Ray, but Charlie Kaufman, Paul Haverstock, the guy who orchestrated the acquisitions that resulted in Sametime, Barry Briggs, an architect behind many of the most interesting technologies developed at Lotus, yes, Gary Devendorf, even though you've gone from a fan to hating him, too...these people (including Ray!) made a conscious decision to come to a company where technology innovation was more valued than they believed it was at IBM."

   Nice theory. Let's see if I have this straight. Ed "hates" Gary. Sure. Groove was running fine. OK... And everyone chose MS for the same reason. Right. By all accounts, Charlie left IBM/Lotus for the challenge at MS. Anyone with a passing interest in security recognizes there's a bigger challenge at MS than with Notes/Domino. Can't blame Charlie for wanting a challenge. Could question his sanity though... ;-)

   -----

   The change that has occured is the one you didn't mention. IBM gets Notes. Couldn't say that a few years ago. They get it now, are investing in it, are extending it, and have laid out a pathway that continues practically as far as you see in software terms (even statements about Notes version 10). Not to mention the direction that further safeguards customer investments by making the client truly multi-platform again (first-class Mac client; Linux with Hannover). Course there's a reason you can't acknowledge IBM's newfound Notes comprehension level. Notes 7, according to MS sales tactics, is the last version of Notes...

1. 63  Peter Wilson  | 4/18/2006 4:59:46 AM

   Exchange = email, nothing more, nothing less

   > Hannover was supposed to be a "7.X release". Now it's 8. 8 was supposed to ship in 2006. Now it's 2007.

   Big deal, speak to your Vista buddies about product release dates.

   I think everyone needs a holiday :-)

   Pete

1. 64  Mike Brown  | 4/18/2006 5:41:01 AM

   @59

   Wouldn't it be more accurate to talk about Accenture's "ONGOING transition from Notes"? It hardly seems to have been completed yet, if what Ed says is true.

   Must be an interesting sales pitch that uses Accenture as an example:

   "Yeah, you'll have to run both systems side by side for two or more years - and double up your licence fees - while you migrate your apps over to the various MS products that do what Notes does".

   Cheers,

   - Mike

1. 65  Phil  | 4/18/2006 5:45:47 AM

   I'm easily confused and all these (rather similar) names workplace-this and websphere-that confuse me.

   Is there a definative list of what all these things are? Prefereably with a simple explanation of what they do and why they are so important to Notes/Domino?

1. 66  Paul Robichaux http://www.e2ksecurity.com | 4/18/2006 9:41:27 AM

   Wow, lots of great comments here. I was going to respond over the weekend, but instead I celebrated Easter with my family. Sorry about the delay. Anyway, the original serve-and-volley between Ed and I might be interesting to readers, so I've posted it { Link } with more to follow once I get more free time. Note carefully the references I cite, read them, and decide for yourself who's more correct.

1. 67  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/18/2006 10:00:03 AM

   @66 Paul, it's real simple. You've got the branding wrong, and thus, your assertion remains wrong. Notes is a client, Workplace Collaboration Sesrvices is a server. WCS therefore simply cannot be the "successor to Notes".

   That's the bottom line, and why that is so difficult to correct, I don't know.

   In your reply you change the wording from what you wrote in the newsletter, and then assert that "Workplace will be the eventual successor to Notes". Notes is part of Workplace already as a brand family, so that one's senseless, too.

   But clearly, readers will decide whose "more correct" about my products and my strategy -- the worldwide sales executive for Lotus Notes or you.

1. 68  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 4/18/2006 11:09:07 AM

   Reading Paul's blog, I picked out this gem... "I think it’s fair to say that the current version of Exchange offers a number of desirable messaging features that Notes and Domino do not." and goes on to mention wireless access and anti-spam. I would argue that Microsoft have focused on a few key market-grabbers while ignoring some very important things that Domino excels at.

   I don't like to be boring and go for the obvious, but let's talk about clustering. Active / active clustering is available in Exchange today, but all I've heard is advice not to use it (and Exchange customers saying they don't use it). Active / active clustering is dropped for Exchange 2007 (unless Paul wants to correct me). This just sounds like an admission that Microsoft can't get the clustering right.

   How about the single point of failure for cluster storage?

   Let's talk security - personally I've never met a single Exchange customer who has implemented a PKI and pushed it out to Outlook clients. Okay, you could argue I don't meet enough Exchange customers. But isn't an integrated PKI a "desirable messaging feature"?

   SCOS or no SCOS? It does make me laugh when Exchange fans talk about Domino using more disk space. I'm no expert on Exchange storage groups, but it isn't necessarily a case of one copy of a message per server. However, that's not the main point - everyone knows that a corruption to an Exchange message store affects many users and takes a while to repair, sometimes hours, sometimes days.

   "...to say nothing of Exchange’s higher scalability on identical hardware". Hello? Where did this come from. Is this comparing Exchange 2007 (64-bit only) with Domino 6?

1. 69  Jim Bernardo  | 4/18/2006 4:52:43 PM

   @62, not sure why I'm wasting my time with this, but...

   I recall (but can't find) reference to Hannover as a "7.X" release. Closest I've found is reference that "IBM has not determined whether it will officially label Hannover Lotus Notes 7.x or Lotus Notes 8.0." from { Link } OK, I'll concede that one, but at least I know I didn't completely make it up, and that's from 2005, not 2000.

   Unfortunately, can't paste graphics here, but there's a great one out of an IBM presentation from, I think, two 'Spheres ago, that show Notes and Workplace converging in 2008, and an arrow with 8.0 of Notes squarely in the middle of 2006. I've put a snapshot here: { Link } I didn't make that up, either.

   On DB2: "Limited support is available for qualified customers"?? What the hell does that mean? Here's Ed from 2003 about how cool this was, and how it showed the flexibility of the Notes platform. All you gotta do is File - Replication - New Replica: { Link }

   Then Ed's spin in August 2005 about how it's not being released because customers didn't test it well enough during beta: { Link }

   Again, like I said before, software is as much art as science. Slipping things shouldn't be acceptable if IBM does it, but evil if Microsoft does it.

   On SCOS, if you like, I can take you through the pitch that Mike Zisman used to do on it when he ran Lotus. Now, it's gone from being a feature pushed by Lotus to one Lotus criticizes in Exchange. Point is, if IBM could ever have made it work right, customers would've used it.

   On SIP, I know I don't have to do a computer science lesson on gateways vs. native functionality, or do I? Lots of people have had SIP gateways for a while. Point is Lotus said they were going to do a native SIP implementation when I was there, and didn't. For about 7 years.

   I'm going to stop here for now, because I'm certain it doesn't really matter what I find to support what I said, I fully expect to get criticized about it....

   @66, Darren, there are tons of customers who do a PKI with Outlook, including us here at Microsoft. I'm not providing names here, because I haven't gotten permission from those customers to do so, but they come from a wide variety of industries and sizes, public and private, government and not.

1. 70  Darren http://www.dadams.co.uk | 4/18/2006 5:39:28 PM

   @69 - re. the PKI, okay I'll concede on that one, as I said I talk to Exchange customers who are looking to make the move to Domino... but I stand by the observation that none of those have deployed a PKI, many citing that it's too difficult to bother with. Domino customers on the other hand take it for granted.

   Re. SCOS... I think the main reason Lotus advocates criticise the Exchange SCOS is because Exchange advocates criticise the individual mail box model of Domino.

   Re. Notes and Workplace convergence... again the debate has to come back to the fact that Notes is a client whereas Workplace is a brand name for a portfolio of solutions. No-one is debating that on the client side there will be certain level of convergence, with Notes being just one of the capabilities that will available within the context of the Workplace Managed Client. If that image came from Lotusphere '04, so be it. Two years is a long time in the computer industry. As I said @29, visions are re-aligned, strategies evolve. You know that Jim... the Exchange roadmap has suffered a few u-turns. There's no forced migrations on the Domino roadmap. What happens for Exchange post-2007?

1. 71  Rod Stauffer  | 4/18/2006 9:07:21 PM

   @69:

   "@62, not sure why I'm wasting my time with this, but..."

   :-) I know the feeling...but here I go again. ;-)

   ----

   "I recall (but can't find) reference to Hannover as a "7.X" release. Closest I've found is reference that "IBM has not determined whether it will officially label Hannover Lotus Notes 7.x or Lotus Notes 8.0." from { Link } OK, I'll concede that one, but at least I know I didn't completely make it up, and that's from 2005, not 2000."

   That's pretty much the point. You were claiming the Hannover version number had slipped from 7 to 8. How can there be a slip when IBM has stated consistently that Hannover hasn't been assigned a version number yet? Minor FUD, but FUD nonetheless. BTW, my reference to 2000 came from your statement of leaving IBM 6 years ago. Publicly a version number hasn't been announced, so unless you had inside info (from when you worked at IBM), the "version slip" was FUD. I didn't communicate that well enough. My bad.

   ----

   "Unfortunately, can't paste graphics here, but there's a great one out of an IBM presentation from, I think, two 'Spheres ago, that show Notes and Workplace converging in 2008, and an arrow with 8.0 of Notes squarely in the middle of 2006. I've put a snapshot here: { Link } I didn't make that up, either."

   Fair enough, there's a photo. Is it just me, or does the "8.0" reference have a question mark though...

   ----

   "On DB2: "Limited support is available for qualified customers"?? What the hell does that mean?"

   Well, since you asked... ;-) { Link } and { Link }

   Looks like "Limited Availability" would have been more appropriate terminology. That said, no argument that it's a slip. Of note though, it is available (for all) and supported (for some). Which seems to contradict your original question of "What happened to DB2 as an alternate back end in R7?"... Yes it slipped. But to basically say it's nowhere to be found?... FUD.

   ----

   "Here's Ed from 2003 about how cool this was, and how it showed the flexibility of the Notes platform. All you gotta do is File - Replication - New Replica: { Link }"

   Yep, that's how it works. Cool stuff.

   ----

   "Then Ed's spin in August 2005 about how it's not being released because customers didn't test it well enough during beta: { Link }"

   Again, like I said before, software is as much art as science. Slipping things shouldn't be acceptable if IBM does it, but evil if Microsoft does it."

   Agreed. But at least NSFDB2 is available...

   ----

   "On SCOS, if you like, I can take you through the pitch that Mike Zisman used to do on it when he ran Lotus. Now, it's gone from being a feature pushed by Lotus to one Lotus criticizes in Exchange. Point is, if IBM could ever have made it work right, customers would've used it."

   Believe that if you must. You don't suppose disk space was a bigger issue back then. Or how about Domino customers not using SCOS to avoid the single point of failure for multiple mail boxes? Individual mail boxes clearly provide better containment of a corruption better than a SCOS. Besides, were we supposed to read between the lines for your original question? It was FUD to indicate SCOS wasn't available. Domino shops don't use SCOS because better options exist on that platform.

   ----

   "On SIP, I know I don't have to do a computer science lesson on gateways vs. native functionality, or do I? Lots of people have had SIP gateways for a while. Point is Lotus said they were going to do a native SIP implementation when I was there, and didn't. For about 7 years."

   Fair enough, there's a difference between gateway vs. native. Somehow I missed that from original question as it only referred to SIP...

   ----

   I'm going to stop here for now, because I'm certain it doesn't really matter what I find to support what I said, I fully expect to get criticized about it....

   Aw...before you revisit the compact / ODS "problem"? I was hoping for at least one acknowledgment. ;-)

   Seriously though, sorry if it comes across that way. I thought I was making valid points...

1. 72  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/19/2006 1:52:40 AM

   @Jim, I'd like to see the pitch you say Zisman gave on SCOS. I remember it pretty differently -- Mike, like me, had the scars from cc:Mail's MLANDATA shared store architecture. I spent many a weekend repairing cc:Mail databases, and Mike knew all about it.

1. 73  Nathan T. Freeman  | 4/19/2006 3:44:45 AM

   "Again, like I said before, software is as much art as science. Slipping things shouldn't be acceptable if IBM does it, but evil if Microsoft does it."

   There's a big difference between slipping a feature and slipping an entire version.

1. 74  Bob  | 4/19/2006 11:49:35 AM

   @73: Slipping or never shipping? Um, *cough*, Garnet, cough, cough :-)

1. 75  Bob http://www.bobcongdon.com/blog | 4/19/2006 11:52:37 AM

   Sorry, I hit Send too quickly. Yeah, bringing up Garnet might be equivalent to Godwin's Law but heck, I worked on it and it still pains me when I think that all that work was flushed down the drain.

1. 76  Nathan T. Freeman  | 4/20/2006 2:36:27 AM

   @75 - Well, I was pretty loud about dropping Garnet being a mistake. But, let's be real about it - it wasn't a hugely demanded feature, and it was JUST A FEATURE. The whole product still got out of the door on time.

1. 77  Bob http://www.bobcongdon.com/blog | 4/20/2006 2:57:48 AM

   @76: Apparently you didn't threaten the right people with the cheese grater "treatment" ;-)

1. 78  Bob http://www.bobcongdon.com/blog | 4/20/2006 3:00:16 AM

   @76: Can't let this one pass: "The whole product still got out of the door on time". Yes, it shipped. It was a solid release. On time? Not so much.

1. 79  Henning Heinz  | 4/20/2006 9:18:47 AM

   I agree that Garnet was not a hugely demanded feature but the reason is that people do not know what they are missing.

   From a web developers perspective this has been a huge loss although for big companies with passport there is the Websphere limited license.

   For Jim Bernardos comments. Even if he is right, I am not getting the point? Should I now consider migrating to Exchange because Hannover was internally announced as V7?

   Picking various unrelated topics and trying to spin an "IBM does not deliver" story is not a good strategy especially as Microsoft himself is the the king of buried codenames.

1. 80  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/20/2006 11:40:30 AM

   @Garnet - I swear there will be a time in my career that I don't hear about this anymore.... would have been more fun to come back to this thread and find that Paul R had indeed acknowledged that he got the story wrong. Instead he seems content to put the head in the sand and hope it goes away.

1. 81  Jim Bernardo  | 4/21/2006 11:18:12 AM

   @72, Ed, it wasn't a presentation per se, but when I ran Lotus's Executive Briefing Center, he used to talk to customers about it pretty much like this (ask him, if you don't believe me):

   If I send an email with a ten megabyte Freelance presentation attached to the ten people sitting in this room, and for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that all of our mailboxes are on the same Domino server, I'm sending ten copies of that email, so 100MB of bandwidth utilization and disk storage. Now, I don't know if you're anything like we are here at Lotus, but here, 9 out of the 10 people who get the email will feel absolutely duty-bound to reply to all with history to tell me that I misspelled the word "the" on slide 3. That's 900MB more of bandwidth utilization and disk storage for a single 10 MB message. Wouldn't it be much more efficient if we only sent one copy of that message per server, and everybody got a pointer to the message and attachment in their inbox? And he would go on to talk about SCOS.

   @71, Rod, I assumed SCOS was no longer available, because all I ever hear from Lotus folks is what a bad thing single instance storage is. Didn't think they would say that if it was still an available feature of Notes. My bad, but seems silly to say "we have this feature, but it's generally a bad idea." To your point, disks are a hell of a lot cheaper now than then, and so is bandwidth, but the basic premise that storing fewer copies of the same data, and using bandwidth more efficiently if possible is a good one, not a bad one. We could have a discussion about corruption of Exchange stores, but this isn't the place for that. The short version is that all of these horror stories that I keep hearing about Exchange corruption are based (largely) on Exchange 5.5. That's three versions ago, guys. We just don't see that with Exchange 2003, and if it does happen, recovery is not the nightmare it's portrayed to be. No, you don't take everybody offline because one person's email box got corrupted. Further, corruption doesn't happen willy-nilly. Nearly always, it's due to a hardware failure, and those don't happen very often. But this is not the place for an Exchange tutorial...

   @73, Nathan, what entire version of what product did we slip? If you're going to throw Vista or Office 2007 at me, I'm going to answer you back with the same language IBM uses (n.b., the change to DB2 availability), to wit, we ship software when it's ready, and our customers would prefer that to the alternative!

1. 82  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 4/21/2006 11:29:34 AM

   Hang on, in the case you describe, Domino sends only one copy of the message "over the wire"... yes, at the server, it breaks it out to deliver it into multiple data stores, because of all the advantages of a single mailbox per user. Exchange doesn't typically store just one copy anyway -- multiple data stores per server, and the greater number of servers (thus, more overall disk and bandwidth) in a typical Exchange environment probably balances out any disk space savings.

1. 83  Jim Bernardo  | 4/21/2006 11:54:38 AM

   Ed, I'm not making the argument, just telling you how Mike used to make it in the EBC...

1. 84  Mike Brown  | 4/23/2006 9:29:08 AM

   @81

   Sorry, Jim, but I for one am not buying this. You can't get away from the fact that Domino gives you a choice in whether you want to store the message once or multiple times. Sure, Lotus recommends that you don't use SCOS, and for good reasons, but it is there, and it is supported.

   Microsoft give you no option. You do it their way or you use another product.

   Cheers,

   - Mike

1. 85  Brian Vincent  | 5/3/2006 8:21:13 PM

   I think the biggest confusion on the future of Notes is how IBM■s slow recovery from a mixed message. They dropped too many abstract buzzwords in one breath and muddled the message.

   "Eclipse", "Eclipse 3.0 Rich Client Platform", "Workplace", "Workplace client", "Websphere", "WMC framework", even "Hannover.■ (not to mention such press botches like ■two lane highway.■)

   It started as IBM marketing's way of propping more than one product in the same breath. But it got out of hand. Then that confused people so then the new material tries to backpedal and say what everything is or isn■t. Unfortunately since its all tied at the hip that tactic hasn■t been working. It rather sounds like this:

   "Notes is not workplace and workplace is not Notes but Notes is part of the workplace family. Speaking of which eclipse is not part of the workplace family but Notes is also Eclipse 3.0 Rich Client Platform based but is not eclipse. Beyond this some of webshpere is now in domino and some of domino is in webshpere but they are still separate but more alike than ever..."

   ACK! Someone would have to spend an afternoon on wikipedia to sort that all out. You don■t want customers having to research your products marketing message!

   Enter FUD as Microsoft gleefully exploits IBMs perceived lack of direction.

   The point is the Lotus/IBM software product family is a labyrinth. While IBMs hardware division has a clear message (self healing blade servers, yes may I have another!) their software groups lack a clear message.

   I, nor 99.9 percent of people care if IBM used eclipse (demystified its just a tool to build software), .NET, or fricking notepad to build Notes. I don■t care what its product family it belongs to, or what its code name is. If I■m a owner already I only care if its easier to use and does more than the old version without more cost. If I■m new I want to know its the most economical all inclusive way to increase productivity.

   As much as IBM wants to sell its other technologies the only way to clear up this marketing snafu is to put the spotlight on Notes/Domino and push the rest aside till this puppy is out the door.

   The correct answer is...

   Notes 8 will be the most advanced messaging client on the market, superior to all competitors. This new version of Notes features a much improved user interface making the most simple collaboration tasks easier than ever. Notes 8 will be compatible with all previous Notes versions, including custom software developed for those versions. Upgrading will be economical not requiring further hardware or software investments.

   Notice the above doesn■t even mention "Hannover." Hannover is a cool code name, but CEO's and ordinary users could give less of a rip. Losing the codename is key at this point to regain clarity of message.

   If there wasn■t a snafu that muddled the message then a plug for eclipse or the ■workplace family■ could be had. But the ball has been dropped so that is no longer an option without bringing the whole house down.

   I■ve a good feeling about Notes Next (can we just fricking call it Notes 8 and get over thigns.) I think it■s going to make outlook/exchange proponents whimper and make Notes guru■s everywhere proud. Lets just sell this as it is, the next version of Notes with complete focus on making users lives easier! Come one come all its finally ok to push f5.

1. 86  Brian Vincent  | 5/3/2006 8:22:05 PM

   Pardon the mime snafu. Can I sell it as the evils of an unclear message?

1. 87  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 5/4/2006 10:54:56 AM

   I don't entirely disagree, but the codename bit surprises me. I for one always make sure to write "Notes 'Hannover'", not just the codename. But maybe that's not enough.

   On the underlying technology point, several of my colleagues are in agreement with you. IBM has to walk a line between the techies who really want to know details <b>now</b> and getting the message out. Thanks for your perspective.

1. 88  Brian Vincent  | 5/4/2006 6:58:04 PM

   Hannover is a great code name and is fun for admin/developer types. But the target for this *client* release is unquestionably end users, especially any end users who control corporate purchase decisions. At some point this product has to be pitched to the board room.

   To corporate decision makers this is how the different names might sound:

   Notes 7.5: "this is a dot release of Notes, probably a tad better than 7."

   Notes 8: "This is the next version of Notes, bigger and better than any previous version."

   Notes Hannover (2 different possibilities): "Mysterious and sexy new gizmo that■s a better Notes." Or un-intentionally "This is some variant of Notes." (Ford Explorer vs. an Eddie Bauer edition Ford Explorer, uh oh possible confusion.)

   We want our Notes techies and IBM sales guys to pitch things clearly to bosses. We want things so clear that when MS sales shows up for their pitch they have nothing to exploit FUD wise.

   If current customers (millions of seats just waiting to be dazzled) upgrade and the new version is popular with end users■ well I don■t need to state what the benefits of this would be to anyone working professionally with Lotus Notes. Honestly I hope IBM sees what a big opportunity this, and its been there all along.