Live data from Hacker News

Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

kapor.com

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for a company that built Notes apps in the mid 90s, and while the UI was clunky as hell, it was a great tool. I was a big fan of the Domino back end too, in spite of the ridicule it got. When Couch and Mongo came out, it was kinda refreshing to me to see "document" oriented dbs come back.

"...the UI was clunky as hell..." The Interface Hall of Shame website (a now defunct, but once popular website with examples of badly designed UIs) did a critique of Lotus Notes back in 1999: http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/index.php?file=lotus.htm&mode=or...

Most of what's listed there is about bad application development (error checking and so forth). Many other complaints come from the fact that Notes was multi-platform (Win, Mac, OS/2, many Unices) and was consistent across all clients, rather than trying to look native in any one of them. The thing about that site that gives me the greatest kicks is that the pages of application tiles on the workspace has since become the way to do things, the only real changes being colour depth, screen resolution and vogue colour choices. (About F5/F9: F5 didn't mean "refresh" to anybody until MSIE came along; F9 did.)

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#52
I cut my teeth on Lotus Notes straight out of school. It was way ahead of its time and anyone who knows about Ray Ozzie knows that dude puts out good kit. Bill Gates didn't make him CTO for nothing.

Anyone who reduced it to a email client didn't understand where its true powered lied which was workflow and document / record management. If you knew how to combine the ACL with forms, views, and agents you could build some pretty amazing apps really quickly. Unfortunately it was always known as a email client which was actually just a Lotus Notes App.

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#53
post #27

I appreciated the nosql-like database model of a "notes" and "views". It inspired the way I managed data for the remainder of my career. I believe the concept of "tags" of flickr or "labels" of gmail are Notes-inspired concepts. Maybe it doesn't scale well for late 90's internet-enabled desktops, but Ray Ozzie developed software with a solid 15-year shelf life. I'm happy to have had the few years experience as a lotu…

Absolutely agree. I spent a lot of time in Notes, read all the blogs, and had all the certifications. It definetly shaped how I look at things even 15 years later. The combination of the ACL, reader / author fields, views, agents, and forms was beautiful

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#54

Notes is a real mixed bag. On the plus side, its open-ended, fully customizable document database is a phenomenally powerful tool for creating information management systems that map very closely to the unique workflows and structures that arise in any business. As an expression of the promise of office automation, it's pretty compelling. On the other hand, it's the world's worst email & calendar client and much of i…

> solution that became prohibitively expensive to change as the business evolved

That sounds like bad coding. The downfall of many Notes systems is that it made it so easy to write simple apps, you ended up with a lot of poorly written apps because you did not need to be a proficient coder to deliver a working product. I, too, have seen downright horrific apps. I've seen teams of consultants hired just to maintain one form. And I've come in, re-written those apps (still in Notes), and turned them into self-maintaining, scalable apps that are 100% maintained by the business owners.

At the end of the day, it is a technology stack. People can use it well, or they can use it badly.

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#55
I used and developed in Lotus Notes for 13 years. All those years I heard how Notes was awful, and how wonderful Exchange and Outlook where... so when I changed company to a Microsoft centric one, in 2014, I was (eager and) prepared to be blown away by the Exchange + SharePoint + Outlook 2013 combination. Oh boy, was I wrong. Lotus Notes runs circles around the E+S+O combination. There is no way that they can touch the power and flexibility of Notes. I was even SHOCKED to see how HORRIBLE the Outlook interface is. How poor it is for a product that does two things: email and calendar. Also, I was shocked how horrible Skype for business is compared to Sametime... And I still don't get how Control-F is not FIND in Outlook...

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#56
I've seen Lotus Notes client installation's folder being migrated from Windows XP to Windows 7 then onto RHEL and finally onto macOS.

Suffice to say that all of the user settings were preserved and the data was readily usable on each platform. This happened over the span of 10 years.

Given the observation, I wonder how many other applications with similar complexity would last even one migration, let alone rolling migration across 4 completely different platforms.

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#57
post #56

I've seen Lotus Notes client installation's folder being migrated from Windows XP to Windows 7 then onto RHEL and finally onto macOS. Suffice to say that all of the user settings were preserved and the data was readily usable on each platform. This happened over the span of 10 years. Given the observation, I wonder how many other applications with similar complexity would last even one migration, let alone rolling mi…

I have done a Windows Server, to Linux to AIX... it was only a matter of moving the "DATA" folder... and it worked perfectly each time...

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aha! I worked with Notes a few decades ago, interfacing it into PeopleSoft. I got it to work but I never really got a grip on the slippery concept of what exactly Lotus Notes was, and why it was so terrible at one-to-many data structures. But thanks to your comment I now get it! It was a document oriented nosql db, years before we had a name for that.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe IBM at some point ended up moving the Domino back end to something relational like DB2 long after I stopped using Notes. I was a MacOS (8 or 9) user when I got that job working with Notes. The thing that I found that helped me learn Notes very quickly was my background using Filemaker Pro. This was before Filemaker Pro had "gone relational".

Yes, a DB2 storage option for Notes existed, but it didn't do anything to solve the basic mismatch between Notes and a) performance of Notes views in databases with hundreds of thousands or more documents, b) one to many relationships / transactions / RI, or c) support SQL or other non-script approach for query or update.

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#59
My first experience with Notes was in grad school in 1992. It looked ugly and didn't make much sense to my relationally-educated brain.

I bumped into it again in the mid-90s when Notes 3 was released and the lightbulb went off. I became a Notes developer overnight.

Things Notes solved years before its time include:

1. distributed databases everywhere even over a crappy pipe

2. distributed software releases through replication (this was genius - everyone forgets in the 90s most end-user software was still distributed on floppies, but with Notes you just push the design out in a replica and all of your end-users get their client apps magically updated)

3. A fully integrated visual app dev + server admin platform that made design of apps a snap. It became possible to sit down with a team and instead of writing down requirements, actually building a working model of the app in the meeting as they describe their needs. This was 1994, and it's still hard to do in most development environments compared to the ease of Notes.

4. Public-Private key identity management and a terrific security model all the way down. It made it very easy to enforce a very granular security policy across all the apps down to individual rows of data with the same global security mechanism. As a dev it made it trivial to build a highly secure app without having to think much at all about security.

5. OS independence!

I worked in one shop in a ~$1B/rev company in 1997 - this team had 3 admins and 4 devs handling email and all the internal corporate apps, pretty much all built in Notes except the financial system which was its own team. This company had fully embraced Notes as an internal app dev platform and had built a marvelously powerful set of workflow apps for all of their core business processes - some 30+ apps total - all of which integrated with each other.

Watching a team of 7 people manage and develop this awesome backoffice system was a big eye opener for me. This company leveraged their IT staff 10:1 or better compared to similar companies using typical tools. A well-run Notes shop in the Glory Years of Notes (1995-2005) was truly a sight to behold.

My longest-lived solutions are Notes apps I built ~16 years ago still being used today.

Fun fact: CouchDB was built by Damien Katz based on a lot of his experience working on Notes / Domino while at Lotus, and Damien Katz is a badass it turns out.

Re: Original Spec for Lotus Notes (1984) [pdf]

#60
post #13

A well run Notes system was a real pleasure to deal with. I worked for a 300-ish employee company spread over 4 countries and 2 US states around 2001-2004 and we used Notes for all internal document management, email and later even web content management. The thing just quietly kept everything in sync; distributed servers, mobile users and their laptops and traditional desktops, and never lost a byte of it despite fl…

UI/UX is so important. When I was involved with a migration from Notes/Domino to Exchange/Office several years ago you would have thought, based on their reactions, that hundreds of employees were being set free. It doesn't matter how technically superior something is if people don't like it.
Post reply on HN