11–20 of 29 posts
Joel's using ubiquitousness as a metric of "good", not necessarily if it is liked.
(yes, something can get put out in 3 months, but rich, full software takes longer. pg was still working on Viaweb after Yahoo bought them)
Isn't it a bit ironic that Lotus Notes is given as an example to good software? I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it.
Isn't it a bit ironic that Lotus Notes is given as an example to good software? I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it.
Isn't it a bit ironic that Lotus Notes is given as an example to good software? I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it.
Hear hear. The Notes adoption curve he points to can be explained by other factors -- marketing, bundling, competition (or lack of it), etc.
Isn't it a bit ironic that Lotus Notes is given as an example to good software? I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it.
I certainly have. And it led me to a little theory: that Lotus Notes' value was in enabling non-programmers to build a certain class of apps. If this is correct, then its value was pretty big (think of spreadsheets). It also explains why programmers hate Lotus Notes so much; systems built this way get messy very quickly (again, think of spreadsheets). But to dismiss the value to users is missing something big and important.
In other words, this dispute about "is Lotus Notes good software or garbage" is beside the point, because it's based on two different definitions of "good software". Software that helps users get things done that they can't easily otherwise do is certainly good by their definition even if it's the greatest garbagey kludge ever known.
(But I never used Lotus Notes, or even, as far as I know, touched a computer that had it installed... this is just based on stuff I've been told.)
Isn't it a bit ironic that Lotus Notes is given as an example to good software? I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it.
I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it. I certainly have. And it led me to a little theory: that Lotus Notes' value was in enabling non-programmers to build a certain class of apps. If this is correct, then its value was pretty big (think of spreadsheets). It also explains why programmers hate Lotus Notes so much; systems built this way get messy very quickly (again, think of spreadsheets). But to dismiss the valu…
Isn't it a bit ironic that Lotus Notes is given as an example to good software? I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't met someone who doesn't hate it. I certainly have. And it led me to a little theory: that Lotus Notes' value was in enabling non-programmers to build a certain class of apps. If this is correct, then its value was pretty big (think of spreadsheets). It also explains why programmers hate Lotus Notes so much; systems built this way get messy very quickly (again, think of spreadsheets). But to dismiss the valu…
I read an interview with an IBM technical guy once who claimed that Lotus Notes was first and foremost a synchronization platform (desktop and server) and email was just kind of built on top of that..