Slashdot Mirror
Campaign to Open Source IBM's Notes/Domino
Ian Tree, an IT consultant from the Netherlands, has started a campaign to convince IBM to open source the code for Notes/Domino. Hoping for results similar to the push for Sun to open source Solaris, which finally saw success in 2005, Tree makes the simple point that it won't happen until someone asks. "By being an open source product, Tree is also hoping that Domino becomes something schools use to teach groupware and application development concepts, which is the holy grail for future market adoption. This is how various Unixes, relational databases, Linux, and a raft of other products eventually became commercialized. While the idea of open sourcing any proprietary program is appealing, in as much as it sets a program free to live beyond the commitment (or lack thereof) of its originator, it is hard to see why open Notes/Domino would have any more impact than OpenSolaris."
CouchDB, which has been generating some hype lately (especially among Rails fans), is by Damien Katz, who did work on LotusNotes and Domino, and claims CouchDB is inspired by that.
According to him, Lotus got a lot of things wrong, but it got the database right.
I don't know if there would be anything to gain from the original (even just to read through it), or if we should all be focused on CouchDB now, but it would be interesting to find out.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I fail to see how making Notes open-source would help this aim. After all, the main obstacle to people using calendaring and groupware apps is that said apps are difficult to use. Given Notes' horrible record regarding usability, I fail to see how making Notes freely available to all would spread the usage of calendaring amongst the general computing public.
In fact, I think that GMail and Google Calendar are doing more to spread automated calendaring than open-sourcing Notes (or even Outlook, for that matter) ever could.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
The Notes/Domino product line generates somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars a year for IBM in pure software sales (not services.) It's also recorded 15 consecutive quarters of double-digit growth, and has grown by over 50% since 2004.
You can see more at the long-running blog of Ed Brill, former worldwide head of sales for Notes/Domino, and currently Director of End-User Messaging and Collaboration. He just finished a year-in-review post http://edbrill.com/ebrill/edbrill.nsf/dx/2008-the-blogging-year-in-review
Disclaimer: During a different stage of my IT career, I was a certified Lotus Domino Application Developer -and- System Administrator.
The Lotus Notes UI WAS overdue for a significant overhaul. For years, it wasn't horrible interface design, but LACK of design that led to the meandering mess that most people experienced in the last two decades.
As of August 2007, IBM finally released a truly well-designed Lotus Notes mail client: Lotus Notes version 8.0, which is, IMHO, the most comprehensive remaking of the Lotus Notes client and its e-mail interface since Notes began. Every client release up until now had UI changes that were evolutionary at best.
The new client itself now sits on top of the Eclipse Rich Client Framework, and will consequently run on Windows and Linux (Mac support coming shortly with 8.5). And you can still access all the same Lotus Notes corporate applications that range considerably in quality. And in fact, the Notes 8.x client can still access Domino 7.x mail files, and they will look exactly the same as they did before (although client menus have changed).
But if you run Domino 8.x servers, with the 8.x mail template, and are using Notes 8.x, the e-mail UI is a ground-up redesign that is far superior to anything that came before it. If you've ever whined about Lotus Notes mail in the past, you should check it out - that complaint is now outdated.
My 2 bits...
The Notes "database" was one of the strengths and weaknesses of Lotus Notes.
Background - speaking strictly about the native Notes Storage Facility (.nsf) format (and not to newer options for RDMS virtualization or or DB2 backend for custom development):
- Everything in Lotus Notes is stored in a "note", each of which has an XML-like data structure. Keep in mind that there was no such thing as XML, or even the internet, when Lotus Notes was first developed.
- User data notes are usually called "documents".
- The components of the design of Lotus Notes application are also stored as XML-like data notes, and are usually called "design elements". So even forms, views, images, script libraries, etc, are stored in "notes".
- The data notes are not dependent on the underlying design elements for their existence. This is a really weird concept for SQL DBAs, where the data is bound to tables for its structure. Drop a table in the SQL world, and you lose your data. In the Notes world, if you delete a field from a form (a design element), the form itself, or even delete views (also design elements)... and the data is unaffected.
- All of the data and design "notes" for a Lotus Notes "database" are stored together a self-contained NSF file.
The loosely structured nature of a native Lotus Notes database means it is both VERY flexible, but lacks some of the rigor (and related benefits) associated with a true RDBMS. Oh, and you can't use SQL to do cool things like left and right outer joins. Instead, you use a Lotus formula language, LotusScript (very similar to Visual Basic), or Java to "lookup" data for display or for repeated storage within a note.
Even Notes data types are much more flexible/loosey-goosey than found in the RDBMS world. They can be boiled down to:
- Text (stored as the equivalent of varchar(32768) in the SQL world)
- Numbers (no need to define integers, floats, or doubles)
- Date/Time
- Rich Text (including attachments, formatting, tables, etc)
- "Name" type fields, which are related to Lotus Notes security.
The loose structure also lowers the barriers of entry to slap together a Notes database. A person can know enough to be productive/dangerous without having a clue about referential integrity, primary keys, or tables.
Some of us would like to see IBM "open source" other stuff, like OS, VSE, VM. Heck, they can keep the source, just give us a hobby, or a "not for profit" license...
And they can keep the current stuff, the stuff they make money on today - like z and ESA. I'ld be more than happy if I could run something like the 20+ year old VSE/SP on my PC at home, under Hercules...
But no, we're stuck with 40 year old "public domain" software, stuff like DOS 26.2 from the System/360 days. Hey, it was fun, I was the "Sysgen Kid" back then. But it only remotely relates to what an, even 20 year old mainframe, is all about today, stuff like CICS...
CICS is a perfect example. Back in the 1.x days, you had 100% of the CICS source code, as long as you had a license. Today "transactiuon server" is a big secret...
Sorry for the OT rant, but it ticks me off. IBM has dumped billions into Linux, but us old greybeards, those of us that wrote those countless lines of Assembly and COBOL and RPG, and yes, CICS code, custom code, without which IBM would have a great OS and nothing else. Those of us that worked shift after shift of unpaid OT, tweaking that demo, making it perfect for the guy that will be spending the IT budget. Those of us that helped make IBM what it is. Those of us that truly enjoy what we do, as a job and hobby...
We can't play with our toys at home, legally that is...
I'm going to retire in a few years. I won't be a licensed user any longer. And I surely can't afford the 4 figure monthly "commercial" software license fee, let alone the 6 figures to "buy" it...
Come on IBM, great "open source" promoter that you have become lately. Do it for us original geeks, we need something to do in our old age...
Open source this - VSE/SP 3.1