This forum is closed to new posts and
responses. Individual names altered for privacy purposes. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a forum for customer support requests. Any customer support requests should be directed to the official HCL customer support channels below:
RE: I still say it is ridculous ~Naomi Deskroterakol 10.Dec.02 08:10 PM a Web browser Notes Client 6.0Linux - RedHat, Linux - SuSE
You said 80% of the functionality. This is a simple discussion forum and
already less 80% is available.
Huh? 84.5% of posts didn't need the native client. How do you get that this
is "less 80%?"
You don't think that users should be able to import a graphic? No wonder
you think a browser is enough.
On the contrary, I definitely think users should be able to import a graphic.
Do you consider that a major challenge on the browser?
You know just as well as I do that this is a limitation of the *template*, and
that designing a template that supports importing of local graphics is far from
insurmountable.
Anyway, I am not going to get buried in this stupid argument.
How on earth is it stupid to debate the merits of native client capabilities
vs. browser capabilities? This strikes me as *extremely* important,
particularly in light of both our areas of expertise and focus.
I have little doubt that hundreds of companies could save money if IBM
introduced a Linux client. I have *never* argued that customers wouldn't see
value out of it. Only that they wouldn't see *more* value out of it than it
would cost for IBM to produce it.
Look, everyone keeps saying "there's all these licenses out there if Lotus just
makes a Linux client. Mozilla support isn't enough." And all I'm asking is
"where are the dollars? Who's committing to the client licenses?" Because
frankly, I'd MUCH rather see Lotus putting resources into improving general
browser development capabilities than building a native Linux client when
there's no revenue stream for such a thing.
Of course, there is the minor proof in the pudding that companies are not
flocking to Linux with web client apps.
There's much greater proof in the pudding that companies aren't flocking to
Linux desktops at all. If the initially cited company that says "we just need
a C&S package for Linux and we'll switch" is for real, then Lotus should bust
out Mozilla support for iNotes and go to them.
My own prediction? The company will respond "but we wanted an open source C&S
package so we're not paying licenses for it, either." And how many others like
that are there?
I'd *LOVE* to be proven wrong, believe me. I'd love to see Notes EXPLODE on
Linux desktops. But think about what has to come together for a company to
want to pursue it...
1) they have to want Linux on the desktop.
2) they have to be willing to pay for software licenses on top of Linux
desktops.
3) they have to find the incremental features of the native client over the web
browsers compelling enough for deployment (which is why the feature % is
relevant.)
4) they have to have a Linux distro that is compatible with whatever native
client could actually be produced and supported (ie: KDE vs. Gnome on some
distro set.)
Now when you stack all those things up, what are we really talking about for a
market? Any given distro of Linux has a fairly small absolute number of
desktops. Ask people to pay for Linux software and their interest plummets.
In the end, there might be, what... a million potential customers? Not even
close to enough to be worth doubling the QA effort for a product with 90
million seats.
Return to top
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE: I still say it is ridculous (~Naomi Deskrote... 10.Dec.02) 
Print this page
