A Domino administrator client for Mac and Linux. A bad idea?
Update: Gab called me an ASW
with the title, so I toned it down!
Usually I would start a post that will
get me in trouble with a phrase similar to "put on flame proof jacket
and asbestos underpants" but in this case I really don’t think its
worth the effort. I’m gonna get flamed but please give my post some
thought.
Recently, I have heard some mumbling
of a Mac/Linux Admin client for Lotus Notes. I don’t know if this
is going to happen or not, but let me start by stating two very well known
facts.
1. I am a domino administrator.
Ergo I use the admin client. A lot. Trust me, if you
are reading this there is a very good chance you are a domino admin geek.
And there is also a very good chance that I am on my computer, with
the admin client as much as you, if not, more.
2. Which leads to my computer.
I am a total Macboy now. Yep, I blame ILUG and the many friends
I have in this community, but the thoughts of using Vista (and I have used
it) gives me a rash. For fairness, I still hate iTunes as a product.
Go figure.
So, all day, every day, I have vmware
fusion running in unity mode and my domino admin client running. Its
the only app I use windows for now, and I would LOVE to not have to run
it. You see, I would LOVE to have a Mac admin client, with all the
functionality of the windows client set. And I would love to see
a linux version aswell. It would be just plain super for me. Many
admin guys I know are Macheads – this would be wonderful. But lets
be realistic.
IBM/Lotus has a very functional windows
admin client, used by a small percentage of people around the world in
the corporate marketplace. I don’t like the browser admin client,
and in fact I recommend it gets removed from all servers as a default (and
the template).
IBM/Lotus have advanced the Notes client
from R7 to the eclipse based, and now very functional R8.5 client in a
few short years. Take a look at what Mary Beth and her team have
done in such a short time. Relatively its a massive leap in UI design
in 1 major release. There is still more to do and they are working
at it. We will see the fruits of their labour next week at Lotusphere.
There are a limited number of developers
at Lotus. There are a limited number of hours in the day. Also,
lets assume that developing in IBM most likely means that the product developers
spend way too much time knee deep in bureaucracy when they could be just
doing the work. The porting of an admin client to two new platforms,
to the level that the product’s biggest supporters (the admins) would love
it, will require a substantial number of development days. A half-arsed
admin client on the Mac/linux would just infuriate the admin guys and would
tarnish its reputation with some of the product’s most loyal fanbase. If
I am wrong about the product development and bureaucracy I will retract
that statement (and be very surprised).
These are development days that the
Notes client UI needs. They are doing so well, advancing the product
so far, making users like it! Undoubtedly more needs to be done.
Performance needs to be improved even more, the UI needs to be made
more intuitive, the basic application interface needs to be improved (*cough*
Workspace *cough*).
Keep the focus on client, where it is
needed. It is said in numerous Notes-bashing posts that the only
people that love Lotus Notes are the admin guys. I’m happy to stick
to my admin client on windows knowing that the bugs in the real client
are being addressed and support-life for Notes operations teams worldwide
is made easier with each end-user client release.
Now, there is an old WWII air raid bunker
at
Malin Head in Donegal. Maybe
I will be safe there….
Gab Davis Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 12:13 am
Actually I’d agree that as Admins we can wait, although I’d love to see more investment all round the potential return to IBM for having Admin on the Mac and Linux is minimal so I understand.
What I’d be thrilled to have though is a stable Mac plugin environment where I can run one of the sidebar remote console tools so I send server commands from there. Now I’m fully 8.5 that’s my first port of call…
Gab
John Head Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 12:47 am
one of the interesting thoughts I have heard in this discussion (at least that is public enough to talk about) is that what if the admin client just became a notes client app. Basically a super powered Composite Application. With plugins for the reporting, graphing, and other stuff. Do we really need a stand-alone admin client vs an admin application? More food for thought
Roland Reddekop Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 1:00 am
I agree with you. Only the Developers should get the really cool tools…
Kevin Pettitt Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 1:20 am
Paul I think your argument against allocating resources to a multiplatform admin client is spot on. It’s at best a “nice to have” but well down in the ranking from things like full-fidelity DXL round-tripping.
I also think both Gab and John are coming very close to making the point that the admin client is really just a massive grab-bag of different tools, only a few of which we typically need at any given time. I suspect that a large majority of the tiny number of admin client users touch less than 50% of its functionality over their careers. Many of the tools, for example user registrations, can be performed by low-level help desk types who have no business typing console commands or manipulating database ACLs.
Breaking out these discreet functions into sidebar plugins or separate Notes apps (standalone or composite) is a terrific idea for its own sake, and that it will bring that functionality to Mac and Linux is just a happy bonus. There are already great little Notes applications available on OpenNTF and commercially that do a substantially better job of certain tasks like agent management than the admin client, so we’re already moving that direction organically.
Interestingly enough, getting DXL round-tripping working right will help tremendously with achieving this goal of “federating” the admin client. This is largely because it is a terrific multi-platform mechanism for building tools to manipulate database properties, agent runtime parameters, and the like.
David Killingsworth Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 2:53 am
If IBM put in the intitial investment to just get it down, then on-going maintenance would require much less resources.
Think of all the Windows licenses that companies could save by not having to have an extra copy just to run one application.
Keith Brooks Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 3:01 am
As an admin I have to agree with Paul. I am not a MAC person so it makes no difference to me what platform the admin client exists on.
I am in favor of better tools used or created as widgets, composite apps or whatever it takes to make my life easier.
But it’s all quite a bit of work and really not so helpful int he long run as I would prefer my phone ot be my admin.
Thanks to Chris Toohey this may come to fruition easier too.
Tony Palmer Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 4:21 am
I agree with the comments and post (isn’t it the 80 20 rule).
All you admin types really need is a command line anyway.
Bill Dorge Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 4:22 am
I agree with John, why do we need and admin client at all. I would think that with the eclipse framework in Notes, you would just build on that. I would have one less thing open on my PC that way.
Ben Poole Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 6:09 am
I question the move to Eclipse if we’re not going to get multi-platform development in the Notes world moving forwards. The whole Mac / Linux thing has slipped and slipped and slipped in terms of timelines and features, so I wonder why they bothered with The Big Change in the first place.
Harald Svab Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 8:03 am
I confess I’m a Mac user. But I would rather have all “admin functionality” exposed to Java or even LotusScript than a Mac or Linux client. For example with LND R7 we were not able to register a new user via the java api (local call) with a longer key length than 630bit. What a shame. So again I plea for exposing all functionallity to java api, knowing R8.5 is much better than R7.
Andy Dennis Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 8:21 am
I totally agree with you Paul. My major concern about using an admin client would be any product issues that may creep into the project. I can’t see it as cost effective for IBM/Lotus to do this, as its used by a limited number of individuals. Even if it was released, I’d be very wary of trying it out on a client site.
Warren Elsmore Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 9:04 am
John Head is right – it’s not really about re-developing the current Admin client, but thinking of entirely new ways to deliver the same functionality.
I’ve heard some really great ideas. But if I told you those, then I’d have to kill you
Ed Maloney Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 10:20 am
Having had the misfortune of using the R5 Designer on the Mac, I agree that IBM should stay focused on one platform for the Admin and Designer client.
John J Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
I have to say that I totally agree with Paul. There’s no real ROI to cater to such a small group as Notes Admins (we really are the minority), and the Notes Admins who only have access (or are only willing to have access to a Mac) are probably an even smaller minority.
I love the changes that have come to the Notes Client, they’re the ones that are going to push Micro$oft Exchange out of my network. Keep the client improvements coming and simplify my life.
David Vasta Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
Paul, while we all know the amount of time they would have to put into the Admin Client, the development and code base would be very similar for MacOSX and Linux? They would share code but they would also be some forks in the code for each build.
Also the “supported” platform is going to crap. Vista is crummy, and Windows 7 is being built on Vista, so I don’t see any good reason to keep supporting crap. With MacOSX being very robust, and Linux (Ubuntu/OpenSUSE) also getting along nicely.
The bigger problem is the fact that we need both the Admin and the Dev client to be effective. As Admins we don’t just use the Admin Client, I have to use both and need the Admin a& Dev client to manage things. So while I think Lotus is prepared to build a Dev client for Mac and Linxu I don’t think they are planning an Admin Client, which should be a priority.
The Web Admin client is “OK” but is not as robust as the Windows Client. It also takes some getting used to and if HTTP fails then you have to get that fixed before you get back in, which has been a pain at least once before.
While I agree with some of your ideas, you are letting Lotus off the hook.
Lotus is doing what Microsoft refuses to do and that is support anything other than Windows. Why not make a FULL Notes client and do what the competition won’t do. I have said or years, IBM/Lotus complain about Windows and then only build clients/tools that keep users forced to use Windows. If IBM were serious about dumping Microsoft on it’s head they would jump on anything Mac or Linux based like a Hobo on a Ham’samich.
When IBM was building the G5 Chip for Apple, they should have built everything for Mac and drove up chip sales but no one at IBM made that connection. Just an observation by me.
If we could get the Open-Source Community excited about managing and developing from Linux for Lotus, then I think we would see a shift in acceptance. We don’t need to open source anything from Lotus, but we could start a ground swell of support that Microsoft has never been able to muster.
I would also like to see Lotus Domino ported to MacOSX Server while we are all asking Lotus for things…..that would be a perfect storm.
Victor Toal Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
wow – this is a discussion that I can get passionate about!
I like John Head’s idea, but as long as that kind of interface/superapp/gizmo does not exist, I don’t think it is too much to ask to have the admin client available on all platforms the Notes client exists on. If IBM wants to support multi-platform, they need to support it all the way and make it possible for Admins to do their work on that platform.
I don’t think that discussion should have anything to do with how many admins really are around to use it – multi-OS functionality means “gimme my admin client” on any OS. How do you propose to sell multi-platform as a strategy for your clients if you are not willing to actually fully support it yourself?
I use Linux ALLOT – but I have to run XP to do the admin client. not a biggie, but I would like to be able to standardize on one client OS for my job depending on site I work at.
PS: I disagree with #7 Tony Palmer – developers should get nothing, they only screw up our environments and leave us a mess to clean up. there are too many developers and too many lawyers in this world anyway ….
Paul Mooney Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
@all – good comments
@16 and 17
These are all things I would also like. So would all other admins. But lets be realistic. Would you want that dev time taken away from the front end product? I wouldnt.
Would the admin people use it if it was not as good as the Windows model. No.
@16 – I wouldn’t write off Windows 7 just yet. Its way too early.
Also, I think thats the first time someone told me I was letting Lotus off the hook… I must be getting old!
Mark Dowling Said,
January 9, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
“There are a limited number of developers at Lotus. There are a limited number of hours in the day.”
That’s letting Lotus, erm, off the hook.
That’s an argument to hire more, and keep the job market for Domino developers from approaching that for mutual fund managers and real estate agent.
Time to turn Big Blue into a bank holding company to get some TARP $$$
In fact, I’m not sure how the guy from ITX Australia (EdB on 7.1.09) manages his Domino-Linux+OS X as “100% Microsoft Free”
Paul Mooney Said,
January 10, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Mark – its not letting IBM off the hook. Its simply realistic. IBM/Lotus is a business. They have a toolset that works and is used by a tiny number of people (in the tens-of-thousands I would guess). If I was product dev manager and I had the opportunity to say, get an extra 1000 dev days to work on this, I would use them for working on the notes client instead, and keep the customer base majority (the end users) happy.
I am an engineer like everyone else here, but a dose of business reality is not letting IBM off the hook.
When they screw up, I blog it, and have/will get my ass kicked for it – this makes sense. Redesigning a full admin client for Mac/Linux is a waste of resources.
Bill Said,
January 11, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Umm. Look at what you do al day, every day .If its things like register users, add users to groups and all that provisioning stuff – there are tools out there which run on just about anything and can let you safely delegate that stuff to HR or whatever.
*cough* shameless plug { Link } *cough*
In terms of monitoring servers, we’ve seen a huge leap forward with the Panagenda and the GSX monitoring tools recently – they’ should quite happily run on anything.
And so that leaves the last third of your job – the hotfixing, the recertifying and so forth. The stuff you rarely do.
Now since IBM/Lotus dont give us all the APIs’ that they use – we cant build applications that do everything they can do. For instance, I cant use code to generate a new encryption key, etc.
For that you need an absolutely fully-featured admin client. And you cant do that in Lotusscript – its all gotta be down and dirty C and C++ code. Horrible stuff, difficult to port, expensive to write, and very hard to test.
Which is where we come down to:
1. How many people actually have anything other than a windows machine as their admin machine, for a seriously large environment.
2. How much money would it take – and given the very low percentage of admins not actually using anything other than windows – why bother ?
Interesting times indeed.
—* Bill
David Killingsworth Said,
January 13, 2009 @ 2:29 am
@Ed Maloney, is it really fair to compare R5 dev client on a Mac to something that might run on today’s Mac OS X? How long ago was that?
Why is IBM pushing for Symphony development to allow organizations to get away from having to license a Microsoft product, but still forcing them to buy windows licenses for the admin client.
With the wide acceptance of Mac OS X as a platform, Linux will start to gain desktop traction over the next 5 years. Now that Apple has paved the way for people to realize that they really can run their apps on something that is not windows without the world coming to an end, there will be more willingness to try free alternatives, especially the way the economy is going…not to mention advances in Linux desktop distributions.
With more Mac OS X and Linux shops, and Lotus Symphony available, why wouldn’t IBM offer an admin client for those platforms.
The other thing is that I have seen an awful lot of admins at Lotusphere through the years, and remember that Lotusphere used to sell out pretty quickly (not sure if it still does).
Lotusphere houses 8000 to 10000 people if I remember correctly and I saw the Lotusphere comes to you schedule last year. It hit something like 40 (or more) cities worldwide.
I would like to see the number of known admins out there. I don’t think it is just a minute number. There are thousands of admins out there. Maybe they don’t blog frequently, live in the United States/Canada/UK, or speak English as their native language, but they are out there.