RE: Fitness for a particular purpose Nathan T. Freeman 11.Dec.02 04:57 PM a Web browser Notes Client 6.0Linux - RedHat, Linux - SuSE
Who cares? No Linux distro comes without both, and thanks to widget
themes the trend these days is to make them both look the same, so that the
user doesn't know the difference. Also, as you say, porting it to Qt would
probably make future releases of Notes accross Windows/Linux/MacOS easier.
The *user* may not know the difference, but a corporate support desk sure
will. They're only going to want to support one or the other. The target
market isn't the college CS student. It's the corporate user.
Are web apps worse than Notes apps?
Of course not, I've never said that.
Perhaps this is a language barrier, but that's what I took...
Functionality? Next time I'll see you selling used cars as low-cost
houses. Hey you can do everything you can do inside a house inside of a
There are many times when I find myself thinking "oh, how easy it would
be if I was doing a web app instead of a Notes app". The problem is that Lotus
can implement in Notes the things that are good in a web browser. However, I
don't think MS or Netscape will implement the good things of Notes in their
Most of this thread has been me talking about how that list of things isn't all
that long, and it's getting shorter by the day.
However, you are wining on the long term and, what's better, if you went
for Red Hat and you decide you don't like them, you can change and go for SuSE
or Mandrake, or whatever, just in the same way that you can buy IBM PCs one day
and HP computers the next.
How often is this really done? Given the continued effort by most
organizations to drop TCO to the floor, interchangable hardware is critical.
Do you seriously think that some IT group is going to want to support desktop
editions of RedHat *and* Mandrake after migrating off Windows? Most
organizations have enough complaints about supporting multiple versions of
I'm not saying these aren't great OSes. They are. But TCO is not about
license cost. Period, end of story. Ask Ed Brill!
Also, many companies have their IT maintenance done by others (the
company I work for, for example). I can assure you that in those cases they
wouldn't have higher IT costs because of using Linux instead of Windows.
How can you assure me of that? I can't find a single outsource provider that
can provide Linux desktop expertise as cheaply as Windows desktop expertise. I
can stand on the street and point at someone who can keep a Windows box running
on an IP network. Where's the Linux expert?
Anyway, if you thing a Winelib port would be great, I still don't see why
we are argueing, because that's what I've always said from the begining.
Because there's an audience. ;)
Seriously, our best opportunity to see results in this regard is to widely ask
for the same thing. Forget spending a gagillion dollars on a Qt/KDE Notes
client -- just get one of the Win32 translation tools to work with it and cover
what portions of the market have real demand. Then when there's a
million-license commitment for a native port on a settled WM, go for it.
I think a Linux port will have to be done sooner or later, but I
understand that IBM doesn't want to risk lots of money without being sure, so I
think doing such a port would be the best thing to do.
Ultimately, IBM can do whatever it wants with its money. I'm just scared that
they're going to gloss over efforts that might be considerably more effective.
It wouldn't be the first time. (Anyone remember the Win 3.1 server?)
P.S. I would be happy with a Wine/Crossover effort, but I think a winelib
efford would be much better.
I'd be a fan of solving the *easiest* problem first, then getting steadly
deeper in point revs.