Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lotus vs. SharePoint

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the let's-get-it-on dept.

181

daria42 writes "An article at ZDNet pits the software collaboration kings against each other. IBM's Lotus Notes/Domino 7 goes head to head against Microsoft's SharePoint Portal Server 2003. 'If you don't have the resources dedicated to developing collaborative applications, don't have complex application or integration requirements or if you are focused on the Microsoft solution stack, SharePoint Portal Server 2003 is going to be hard to beat,' the review concludes."

cancel ×

181 comments

Keith Curtis vs. The Irish (0, Troll)

Keith Curtis (923118) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403436)

Keith Curtis is going to personally punch those drunk bastards square in the cock.

Haven't RTFA yet, but... (4, Interesting)

Qui-Gon Jinn (53730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403448)

I've used both apps, as a user, not a developer. I can say this with certitude: if I want something fast with reasonable workflow capabilities, I can get it out of Sharepoint. Aside from my corporation's resource constraints, development on Lotus is way over my head and thus useless to me. /Begin flamewar

Re:Haven't RTFA yet, but... (1)

charleste (537078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403659)

I find the Notes/Domino solution confusing - the learning curve is quite steep and requires actual training it seems. BUT my coworkers find it very flexible and useful. On the otherhand, I've had difficulties getting sharepoint to work properly in a large distributed developer group.

Irony (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403458)

Given that I spent the last four weeks designing and implementing a Plone intranet site because SharePoint turned out to be an unworkable solution for a 80 developer team that is distributed over 4 locations in the US, Japan and Europe, this "review" cracked me up.

Re:Irony (2, Interesting)

sodul (833177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403646)

I have to use Share-point where I work and I truly deeply hate it.

Sure it kind of works in an All Windows/IE, purely M$ environment, but as soon as you add an alternative browser, or even worse OS, then it's damn painful.

It's also quite difficult to update data automatically (it might actually be possible, but I doubt it's trivial to get data from a non M$ machine).

I guess something like sharepoint works for 'Management', but for developers I think it's hard to beat a good Wiki. And good ones have history, WYSIWYG, and work with most if not all browsers and OSs.

Re: Irony (4, Interesting)

i am kman (972584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403669)

Why was Sharepoint unworkable?

We're using it across a 250+ person project distributed across 7 US location through multiple firewalls and it works GREAT! It not only works well within our company, but we use it extensively to 'publish' project deliverables and status to our clients and selectively share information with subcontractors.

It's also very easy to setup new Sharepoint sites for new projects.

I also used Lotus 2-3 years ago and it was far more difficult to use and setup new areas. Sharepoint beats Lotus hands-down.

For what it does, it does very well and is easy to use. For developers, it's not a CM tool and doesn't seem particularly oriented towards them, so perhaps you were just looking for something else?

Re: Irony (2, Insightful)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403956)

It's very good for what it does out of the box, but the extension capabilities suck.
Three different programming models(Web parts,CAML,Sharepoint object model) for extensions, wacky directory structure, SQL server dependence, windows authentication, a stupid markup language with no designer support, and a whole lot of inadeuqately documented features.

Working across firewalls? Do you use the whole gamut of office integration features? Such as MS Project publishing, Outlook sync, and document storage for Office documents. I suppose there's always a way(reverse ISA proxies and all), but the bang-for-the-buck factor seemed to be pretty low, for such requirements. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of hacks/duct-tape you had to apply.

Next version promises to change all, as do all MS products. Let's see...

Re: Irony (1)

Chazmyrr (145612) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404244)

It's nice for small shops. In a large corporation with 250,000+ employees, Sharepoint doesn't work so well.

Re:Irony (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403759)

so Sharepoint sucks because your company is incompetent, interesting.

Re:Irony (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403797)

Plone doesn't do the same thing as Sharepoint AT ALL. It sounds like your problem wwas that Sharepoint was an inapropriate solution, rather than that it's a bad product.

Re:Irony (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403980)

Now, why can't it be both? Inappropriate an bad.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15404140)

I guess it *could* be both, but just because it's inapropriate is no reason to assume it's bad - the assumption the grnadparent post has leapt to.

In my opinion it's actually poretty good at what it does, whatever that's worth.

Re:Irony (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403800)

> Given that I spent the last four weeks designing and implementing a Plone intranet site

No, no, no. If it doesn't have per seat and per server licensing it isn't a solution. I also loved the way they mentioned the existence of other products (because they knew readers would know about them and wonder) then promply blew them off to concentrate on the two most expensive and infexible offerings on their way to a conclusion that was a no brainer.

One paragraph summary of the review:

If you are already in bed with IBM, stay there for now and if you are a Microsoft Slave(tm) buy their stuff without question. If you haven't picked yet you should probably buy Microsoft because IBM costs more (it does) and trained monkeys can operate it (the stock excuse for buying any of Microsoft's junk) and anyway, we all know Microsoft always crushes all opponents so skilled Lotus people are going to be rare exotic creatures (read expensive) in the future. But whatever you do, DO NOT look over at those free offerings, they will only lead you from the One True Path, paying out the ass for licenses and consultants.

Re:Irony (1)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404135)

"so skilled Lotus people are going to be rare exotic creatures " Don't confused skilled with "doing the same thing thier entire carreer". Like most things there are level .. .monkey's should be able to publish thier own content, create site's etc. .. the ability to infopath+biztalk aspect of it rocks and can be stood up a releatively short amount of time.

Re:Irony (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404145)

If you are already in bed with IBM, stay there for now and if you are a Microsoft Slave(tm) buy their stuff without question. If you haven't picked yet you should probably buy Microsoft because IBM costs more (it does) and trained monkeys can operate it (the stock excuse for buying any of Microsoft's junk) and anyway, we all know Microsoft always crushes all opponents so skilled Lotus people are going to be rare exotic creatures (read expensive) in the future. But whatever you do, DO NOT look over at those free offerings, they will only lead you from the One True Path, paying out the ass for licenses and consultants.

What if I cut the monkey training budget so my stock would go up one quarter of one percent?

Easy win for MS (2, Insightful)

darth_MALL (657218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403465)

MS has the advantage in that EVERYONE knows (more or less) how the office products work - Sharepoint is the same. No need to start from the ground up to learn the product. Market saturation has it's advantage - Get's me to thinking - is there a point of no hope in competing with Microsoft?

Sharepoint vs WebSphere (1)

blantonl (784786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403470)

Wouldn't a more appropriate comparison be between WebSphere Portal v6.0 and Sharepoint?

Re:Sharepoint vs WebSphere (2, Insightful)

crosstalk (78439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403775)

Or lotus workplace which are the real collaborating software. comparing notes to portal server, is like comparing outlook to sharepoint.

Re:Sharepoint vs WebSphere (2, Insightful)

Monster_Juice (939126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404205)

Or lotus workplace This would be a better comparison.

The article should compare Lotus Notes to Microsoft Outlook OR Lotus Domino to Microsoft Exchange.

Maybe ZD can compare apples and oranges next for citrus content and determine apples are the true winner if you have an apple orchard.

Re:Sharepoint vs WebSphere (or Notes...) (2, Insightful)

StabnSteer (705930) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404485)

YES YES YES...I agree that this is not an apt comparison at all. I worked for a company that used both. I loved and loathed them both. But each did something very well - and those "somethings" were very different. I think it is pretty unusual to use Notes solely as a rapid development platform for web-based database apps with workflow and granular security, but that's what we did with it - no email...no groupware. It completely blew anything else we had out of the water at doing this.

SharePoint? Well...it was great for little web sites using default web parts, which is what most clients wanted it for. But the doggone things multiplied like tribbles in the hold and if you have any kind of serious change management system in your company, SharePoint likes to thumb its nose at working within those types of guidelines (Head of IT: "What do you mean the users change the content of the site LIVE? We need to lock that down!") (sigh)

where is the open source alternative? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403476)

where is the open source alternative?

oh wait i forgot, open source faggots dont care about making money, or making useful software for businesses. Theres no command line interface to it either, so you bearded unix nerds wouldn't know how to use it.

Re:where is the open source alternative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403929)

good point, I mean, why can't I run something like this:

gnuPoint -g ://item/project/data/entry /my/local/directory >> nano

It's so much simpler!

infinity (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403480)

Why not try infinity [crosslogic.com]

The key phrase (2, Informative)

crummyname (977083) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403502)

"SharePoint on the other hand is the relatively new kid on the block, and while it doesn't have the complete feature set that Lotus Notes offers, it does have a leg up in terms of Microsoft Office integration and ease-of-use."

Re:The key phrase (2, Informative)

Serapth (643581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404125)

Sharepoint is actually a pretty damned impressive product now that it hit 2003. 2001 and the origonal werent near as impressive. Sharepoint is pretty damned close to a disruptive technology if your company uses it correctly. It pretty much blows away the concept of organizing via shared network file system aswell as sharing documents internally with attachments. If you can train yourself off both those practices, the productivity gain is pretty damned impressive.

That said, Workflow is the biggest weakness of 2003. My understanding is 2007 will have workflow built in which will make a huge difference. Otherwise, you will probrably end up buying a BPM ( Business Process Management ) package from a company like K2, Ultima or Captaris. Once you start organizing documents in a portal, your quickly going to want workflow on top like approvals and routing, or tiered publishing. Out of the box, Sharepoint supports all of those things pretty poorly.

Great comparison (-1, Offtopic)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403532)

Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. SharePoint vs sucky ass Notes. Of course Notes loses. Anything loses.

Right up there with Jehovah's Witnesses making fun of Catholic dogma.

Reminds me... (1)

free space (13714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403584)

I wonder how the "enterprise" companies like IBM and Oracle sell their software in the first place. My experinece with a lot of their ( very expensive) products is that they are difficult to install, use and develop with. As if they're following a "Making customers hate your product HOWTO". Microsoft's products are like 5 or 6 times more usable, always.

I understand that products of IBM and co are more capable and powerful, but in 70% of the cases the MS product would do fine..how come then the 'enterprise guys' sell much more than they are expected to?

Re:Reminds me... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403896)

My experinece[sic] with a lot of their ( very expensive) products is that they are difficult to install, use and develop with. As if they're following a "Making customers hate your product HOWTO". Microsoft's products are like 5 or 6 times more usable, always.

It has been my experience that if are already an all MS shop, MS products are less expensive, but only if you are an all MS shop and may the gods have mercy upon you if you ever need to integrate with other platforms or do anything beyond those limited capabilities because it will truly be a hellish experience.

The MS motto should be, "you're already locked in, so suck it up and pay a little more, cuz we're usually 'good enough.'"

50% of their sales would be gone tomorrow if there was such a thing as a free/open source sales guy or if people doing the purchasing evaluated free alternatives.

Re:Reminds me... (2, Insightful)

free space (13714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404238)

It has been my experience that if [you] are already an all MS shop, MS products are less expensive, but only if you are an all MS shop

The Oracle products I used (in 1999 I admit) were hard to install, used a nonstandard GUI and were programmed with PL/SQL, a crappy nonstandard language that I despise to this day.
So while MS products are friendly when you're an MS shop and hard otherwise, it's a step ahead of the competition, which is hard on any platform. I hear Oracle improved the quality of the database and replaced PL/SQL with Java, but I still hear complaints from time to time. And IBM/Lotus products seem to be no better.

and may the gods have mercy upon you if you ever need to integrate with other platforms or do anything beyond those limited capabilities because it will truly be a hellish experience.

While that's true with their desktop applications, Microsoft's server software is built on open standards like everyone else. They use TCP/IP, and XML everywhere. Also, MS's products are very programmable and If you know a bit of C++ and COM you can make the software work with almost anything.

The MS motto should be, "you're already locked in, so suck it up and pay a little more, cuz we're usually 'good enough.'"
Their motto is, unfortunately: "If you already use one of our products, using any other product we make will be easier than using our competitors' stuff". Yes, it leads to MS automatically gaining market share in their new products by exploting familiarity with old products, but that's not neccessarily "cheating" since other vendors can work a bit harder and make their software as easy to use as Microsoft's offerings.

Re:Reminds me... (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404462)

While that's true with their desktop applications, Microsoft's server software is built on open standards like everyone else. They use TCP/IP, and XML everywhere. Also, MS's products are very programmable and If you know a bit of C++ and COM you can make the software work with almost anything.

Disclaimer: I haven't administrated and Windows servers for several years, just used them and listened to gripes

You must mean open standards like Exchange, Active Directory, FAT, .doc, .wmd and the like? They only use TCP'/IP because they were desperately playing catch-up on having internet access at all and because they haven't grabbed enough of the server market. They abuse XML more than use it, using patents and embedded binary data to describe structure to remove all of the main advantages, like interoperability and tool reuse. As for programming, everything is closed source and as such cannot be truly customized. Using MS products is an exercise in work-arounds and trying to jump over roadblocks they intentionally constructed to lock you into only their products.

Doing something as simple as running a mail server using MS tools becomes a huge pain in the ass. Try serving mail to Windows, Linux, and OS X clients and still allowing all users to use all the features available to that client. Then try implementing ClamAV to filter the viruses. You're better off skipping AD and Exchange and implementing all open source and standards. Otherwise you'll spend all your time fighting the fact that MS products won't play nice and can't remain stable serving POP, IMAP, and Exchange.

This is what I experienced and the same story I've heard from admin after admin who runs a mixed environment. How you got a different impression is my question. Have you ever administered a mixed environment with MS server products and other servers?

Yes, it leads to MS automatically gaining market share in their new products by exploting familiarity with old products, but that's not neccessarily "cheating" since other vendors can work a bit harder and make their software as easy to use as Microsoft's offerings.

It is cheating if they use secret or undocumented protocols and formats, which they do. It is also illegal if you're a monopoly, which is why MS was convicted of it in the EU.

Sales and Consultancy (1)

donutello (88309) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404219)

IBM and Oracle have much better sales forces and more competent consultancy services than Microsoft.

I know of two very large organizations where they're sticking with IBM solutions for no reason other than the fact that the IBM sales guy has built a great relationship with someone very high in management and the Microsoft sales guy has been downright incompetent by comparison.

Besides the sales savviness, IBM and Oracle both have very strong consultancy departments which will customize their software to do whatever you want it to do. With Microsoft, you're stuck trying to hire an independent firm that will do the same for you.

Point (1)

free space (13714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404279)

I think that might indeed contribute to the IBM/Oracle sale, and may also contribute to the general crappiness of the products, since making Notes or Oracle software very easy to use will kill half of the consultancy market overnight.

Heh, Oracle even has "software installation consultants"

Kollaberation Kombat? (1)

saboola (655522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403548)

Sharepoint Wins...

FATALITY!

Too little too late (2, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403551)

While I'm often the first to make fun of "Slowest Notes", It's a helluva a full-featured package, and the companies that are interested in this sort of functionality have already been using Notes for a long, long time. Microsoft is just too late to the party.

Re:Too little too late (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403643)

(rant)

which is the goofy part, as Notes has been around for soooo long it still is as buggy as beta. I have been using and supporting notes for almost 4 years and there is no end to the crashes, bugs, missing dic files, random unread docs, replication conflicts, and dont get me started on trying to migrate from version 5-6, let alone from 6-7. Every day I fear turning on the sametime server or using the more advanced features, often waking up in a cold sweat seeing the Red Box of death from the old days.

I believe that notes is a prime example of what happens when you get a large corporation that gets fat and lazy in the dev of their products, bring on the competiton I say, maybe we will see some stablility rise from notes and some actual useful database structure.

(end rant)

Re:Too little too late (3, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403948)

While I can say that I have found a bug or two, crashes are very rare. Missing dic files means that something is screwed up at the os level. You can get missing files with any application if you start deleting stuff at the os level. Random unread docs is usually only a problem if the user is sometimes reading from the web interface, and sometimes reading from the client interface. Of course sometimes it is because the document HAS been updated, and the database is set to flag updates to unread.

I can tell you this about Replication Errors. They work flawlessly. If you are getting replication conflicts, it is because you have different data on different Replicas, and the data was changed on each replica since the last replication. Save/Replication conflicts are not a failure of Notes/Domino. They are the proper handling of conflicting data. Most other platforms just pick one copy and indiscriminatly over write the other. This is general done by date, and is a very poor way to handle things. Of course if you want your data handled poorly, you can set Notes/Domino to just overwrite the older data.

The biggest curse of Notes/Domino is that for years, the Designer was the same application as the Developer. Given how easy it is to produce robust applications on this platform, many companies assigned the first user to be the developer. Now, I'm not saying that a secratary cannot be a good developer, but being a secratery certainly doesn't mean that you ARE a good developer.

Re:Too little too late (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404349)

As for the rest the problems I am aware of are just that problems, I can fix them just fine, the misterious unread documents are still that, a mistery as the users who are experiencing it do not use the web interfact let alone know what something like that would be, they are rather simple folk. Nah this is something completely separate, I have seen the web gui issue, this is different in that it is almost always 1 unread, misteriouly appearing during the working day, even had it happen a couple times for me.

As for the first user to be dev, you are spot on, the two devs we have were secretaries basically made dev due to a lack of options.

Re:Too little too late (1)

GWTPict (749514) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403999)

I've been working with Notes for the past 4 or 5 years, the problem as I see it is with a little bit of knowledge you can get something up and running, then you build on top of what you've got, a little more functionality here, a funky new screen there......

You can code absolute crap and Notes will run, yeah it'll pop the red box up or piss off and think about things for 20 minutes before giving you control back but it will run.

Currently for my sins I'm maintaining and extending a Notes system written by someone with no programming training what so ever, just enthusiasm and the Designer client. It's horrible, it's a classic example of how not to program, but it runs, I suspect that wouldn't be the case if developed in with another tool. You can make your own mind up if that's a positive or a negative.

Oh yes, you won't see much of a database structure because it isn't a traditional database, it's a document store, two different things. If that upsets you don't worry, you can point a Notes front end at a DB2 backend and get all the relational goodness that you need.

HTH

Re:Too little too late (1)

wed128 (722152) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404176)

In the next month or so my work will be migrating from 5-7. I too wake up in a cold sweat.

Re:Too little too late (1)

tmasssey (546878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404315)

Don't.

I've been impressed with 7's reliability. The client is virtually indistinguishable from 6.5, but it is a little faster and mroe stable. Now, we're grading on a a *bit* of a curve here, but it's probably the best Notes client I've used, ever.

Yes, Outlook 3003 is prettier. It will *always* be prettier. But Notes 7 is extremely usable.

Re:Too little too late (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403922)

I remember when the same could be said with Novell and their NDS ( now Edirectory) services.

Look where they are now?

Its amazing how much integration gives phb's a woody. Active directory is a pos or was when I was in IT in 1999 when someone told me its bloated 70x over NDS and would require a whole lan upgrade!

I think most linux users who love to bash Microsoft never understand why their os is not king of the desktop. Articles like this mentioning Office2k7 integration and windows integration is what MS uses to lock people in.

OBviously this wont change anytime soon. I expect this to take over unless Notes does something totally revolutionary that Sharepoint can't match. Hell if ms can beat Netware and NDS then it can surely do the same with this.

Notes blows chunks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403552)

Anyone that willing chooses Notes is asking for a world of pain. Notes blows and probably always will blow. IBM needs to throw that away and use GMail.

GroupWise?? (1)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403565)

Me thinks they forgot about Novell's Groupwise too.

Re:GroupWise?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403594)

They probably just wisely ignored it...

Re:GroupWise?? (1)

malraid (592373) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403994)

GroupWise is something completely different. It's comparable with Exchange/Outlook

Re:GroupWise?? (1, Troll)

Serapth (643581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404073)

I can say as a company we are moving away from Novell to a sharepoint solution. ( By the way, Groupwise is closer to Exchange, so far as products go ). Right now we make fairly extensive use of iFolder for our Extranet and hands down Sharepoint has it beat. First of, the stability of Novell is something horrid compared to Windows 2003 ( never though id say that... ). Yet, since about Netware 6, its brutal the number of critical crashes that occur.

On top of that, Novell just can't compete feature wise. Versioning? Nope. Easy self service? Nope. Office Integration? Nope. On top of that the Sharepoint searching and meta data aspects just trounce Novell hands down. Frankly I would figure within 3 years we will be Novell free ( its File & Print now, used to be much more ). Im not going to lose any sleep over that either.

The biggest flaw to date with Sharepoint 2003, is that lack of workflow. You end up buying something like Captaris Teamplate, or K2 Workflow within months of a purchase. There is basic document approval built into Sharepoint, but its almost useless.

Re:GroupWise?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15404189)

Speaking of workflows . . .

I've been dumped into a SharePoint environment that is used almost exclusively for workflows. The workflows are done in BizTalk. The documents are InfoPath. I think BizTalk sucks for this use. Maybe it's good for a non-human workflow. But, not for human workflows.

I've heard of Capteras and have been evaluating K2 and AgilePoint on my box. I am far more impressed with AgilePoint than anything else that I've seen.

Re:GroupWise?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15404297)

Dear jackass,

I have one question: what does GroupWise have to do with Sharepoint and Lotus?

Sincerely,
Annoyed Slacker

Speaking as a Scarepoint user (2, Insightful)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403610)

I've not user the newest Lotus Notes, but I use Scarepoint daily. I hate it. God forbid anyone use something other than IE. And if you want to view a document quickly, forget it. My department mandated that all our documentation get migrated from a fairly vanilla but searchable PHP site I built into Scarepoint. Since Scarepoint doesn't support html with linked images, I had to convert everything into Word docs. Now viewing frequently used information takes upwards of a minute where it used to be nearly instantaneous. Thanks a friggin lot.

Re:Speaking as a Scarepoint user (1)

ednopantz (467288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403747)

key phrase: "from a ...site I built"

Re:Speaking as a Scarepoint user (4, Informative)

awkScooby (741257) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403804)

God forbid anyone use something other than IE.

It's pretty much not usable with anything other than IE on Windows. IE on OS X (when they Microsoft provided such a thing) was unusable. Fortunately I had my laptop with me when the Microsoft folks were pimping Sharepoint to management. They said things like, "oh, yeah, it will work as long as it's IE. No problem." So I asked them to show me how since I was having problems with their Sharepoint site using IE on OS X.

Needless to say, we're not running Sharepoint.

Re:Speaking as a Scarepoint user (1)

tuxette (731067) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404123)

God forbid anyone use something other than IE.

I've used it with Mozilla without any problems, and when there are problems, the same problems also show up in IE...

Re:Speaking as a Scarepoint user (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404395)

No offense, but that comment reeked of, "They stopped using my uber wicked cool PHP website that I spent hours and hours making. Wahhh."

At the very least, it's a biased opinion, not objective...

Re:Speaking as a Scarepoint user (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404473)

At the very least, it's a biased opinion, not objective...

Instead of saying "You must be new here", I'll simply say "Welcome"!

WSS v3 & MOSS 2007 (5, Interesting)

iacyclone (180583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403626)

I was just at a Microsoft SharePoint conference last wek in Seattle and I have to say I came away very impressed with the new features they will be releasing soon. The integration with the office suite is very impressive. I think this next release will put SharePoint over the top. The 2003 version is good, but this next version looks much, much better.

Ermm. Looks can be deceiving (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403937)

It's microsoft after all, and they have a history of deception.

What's nice about that is that as a sysadmin I'm -guaranteed- work anywhere that attempts to do anything slightly different than a default installation.

(I after e except after c right?)

Re:WSS v3 & MOSS 2007 (1)

sceptre1067 (197404) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404328)

Curious... how much Groove has affected the new version. I know that since buying Groove MS is incorperating it into office 2007. Just wondering how much of that expertise they're using in sharepoint.

Re:WSS v3 & MOSS 2007 (1)

iacyclone (180583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404478)

They had a few sessions on Groove but it is not tightly integrated with Sp. You can connect Groove to a SharePoint site and work on documents, etc. Other than that it didn't appear that there was a real tight integration with Groove.

Grrrr (2, Interesting)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403628)

As a developer at a large bank which requires us not only to use Lotus Notes, but to have it open at all times so we can be sametimed and be alerted of new emails ... I have to say it blows. If it wasn't for me being a developer and getting a P4 2.5ghz 1.2gb ram pc ... I would shoot myself now. I view my co-workers (non-developers) pc's occasionally and they're chugging along on their P3 256mb ram pc ... ouch.

Re:Grrrr (1)

Elvis Parsley (939954) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404234)

which requires us not only to use Lotus Notes, but to have it open at all times so we can be sametimed and be alerted of new emails

You know you don't have to do that, right? Sametime will work whether or not Notes is running, and you can have Notesminder keeping you alert to emails and alarms. It's entirely possible that your admins have screwed things up in such a way that that's not possible, but the tools to keep chat and email up with a small footprint are right there in the box.

Re:Grrrr (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404363)

This could be true? Nobody has showed me ... and getting good documentation on Lotus Notes is impossible. All I know is ... We recently upgraded to Lotus Notes 6.5 and now Sametime is INSIDE Lotus Notes ... so they're no longer 2 separate applications. Pretty annoying ... and I haven't seem a work-around yet.

Re:Grrrr (1)

Quince alPillan (677281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404301)

Two applications:

Lotus Sametime Client

Notes Minder

Sametime client lets me have Sametime without having Lotus Notes open all the time.

Notes Minder alerts me whenever there's a meeting or email without having Notes open. Unfortunately, Notes Minder seems to have a small bug in it. It keeps saying "Ignoring Pre-Cutoff Unread Replication Activities" after running it for a few months and even though I've been able to get rid of it temporarily, I've never been able to get rid of it permanently.

That said, I absolutely loathe Lotus Notes for being excruciatingly slow.

Re:Grrrr (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404316)

We recently upgraded to Lotus Notes 6.5 and now Sametime is INSIDE Lotus Notes ... so they're no longer 2 separate applications. Pretty annoying ... and I haven't seem a work-around yet.

Re:Grrrr (1)

callistra.moonshadow (956717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404398)

I used to be a Notes Developer/Adminstrator 8 years back. Even then Notes was sadly full of code bloat. If you had the skills to develop in it great, but otherwise you were out of luck. I haven't seen any real improvement on ease of use or performance. Sad but true.

Re:Grrrr (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404471)

Yeah ... we upgraded to 6.5 ... and I saw no real benefits from the user's perspective ...
not sure if I was clear or not ... but I'm a web developer that just happens to have to use Lotus Notes for my job ... I'm not a Lotus Notes developer ... and really really hope i never get to that point in my career :-)

I don't know who to root for! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403661)

On one hand, I hate Microsoft because they love to make this sort of stuff not work very well/at all unless you're running Windows. I'm sure SharePoint is no different.

On the other hand, Lotus supports multiple platforms, but does a terrible job of it. Lotus Notes for the Mac, for example, is a godawful abortion of a program. It only recently started supporting locating user data files in the user's home directory instead of the application's directory, for one thing. For another, it's a lousy port-- the application installs listerally hundreds of 8.3-named files that are clearly recycled portions of the Windows version.

So if you don't use Windows you're probably going to have a subpar experience no matter which you choose-- the only difference is the root cause: malevolence or ineptitude.

Progress? (1)

hlh_nospam (178327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403680)

The company where I have my current day-job is in the process of moving from Lotus Notes to MS Outlook. This is being presented as a Big Leap Forward.

Re:Progress? Over or inTO the (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403920)

great deep chasm?

(GO LOTUS! GO IBM!)

Goddamned Stupid:

"Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING."

I only lower-cased ver in over to end the abort..

Sharepoint is OK (4, Informative)

br00tus (528477) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403684)

I've never worked with the Lotus stuff. I work for a Fortune 1000 company where until a few months ago, all public IT documents were stored in a shared directory on a Windows file server. So there was no record of when it was created, who was modifying it, who erased it if it was erased etc.

Recently we began using Sharepoint. The upside is it's like CVS - you can see who edited a file, when, and what they changed. This is useful more for utilitarian purposes than spying - if I see Joe created a file, or modified it, I can ask Joe about it.

One drawback for Sharepoint is linkage. In the old days I could just tell people to go to \\FILESERVER\IT\Documents\Whatever\Coolstuff.xls . They click on that in e-mail and it pops up. Now I have to give convoluted instructions on how to get the document. The URLs are long and convoluted. It was easier to direct people to information before.

I am stuck here in Windows hell, are there any GPL and possibly UNIX-friendly versions of this type os software?

Re:Sharepoint is OK (3, Interesting)

duplicate-nickname (87112) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403755)

Really, the URL's are no different that UNC paths depending on how your SharePoint is setup. Instead of your path listed above, it might be http://sharepoint/IT/Documents/Folder/Coolstuff.xl s [sharepoint] . The only convoluted part is that spaces are encoded into %20 which can be annoying.

All-in-all, I am very impressed with SharePoint 2003 and we keep finding more and more uses for it.

Re:Sharepoint is OK (4, Informative)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403780)

If your primary need is document management (version control, approval process, etc.) I have found Knowledge Tree [ktdms.com] to work pretty well. We've been using it for about one year, and it's fairly easy to set up and we haven't had too many bugs.

Re:Sharepoint is OK (1)

optikknight (977123) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403851)

if you build it, they will come. ;)

Re:Sharepoint is OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403931)

http://www.alfresco.com/ [alfresco.com]

Re:Sharepoint is OK (3, Interesting)

ackdesha (572569) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403932)

I am stuck here in Windows hell, are there any GPL and possibly UNIX-friendly versions of this type os software?

I've been using basecamp http://www.basecamphq.com/ [basecamphq.com] as a lightweight solution, and I really like it so far. I'm not sure about scaling it up to a large corporate level, but it has been great so far for my small team. The downside is all of your data is on their servers.

It uses a Software as a service model, pay as you go. So not GPL, but it does expose a HTTP/XML API that could easily be hacked with perl, python, etc.

The company http://www.37signals.com/ [37signals.com] also offers a few other solutions. You may have heard of them through all of the RoR hype lately.

Subversion is far better for your needs. (4, Informative)

955301 (209856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403946)


Subversion. http://subversion.tigris.org/ [tigris.org]

What you are describing is a source control system applied to documents instead of code. By design any files in the subversion repo are accessible via url. And you can restrict access using apache httpd access controls.

For example, here is a subversion repo: http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/ [collab.net]

notice you only needed a browser to get to it. If you use TortoiseSVN as your client, you can grab a copy using Window Explorer as a file-friendly client.

Here's a screen shot of TortoiseSVN:
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ [tigris.org]

Access via apache httpd is through web DAV, so you can put it in your network share list as well.

Re:Sharepoint is OK (2, Interesting)

plopez (54068) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404008)

I tested and pushed hard for theis one at a place I worked at:

http://www.cybozu.com/ [cybozu.com]

then they hired an IT genius for a director or it who thought that the only true software is microsoft....

Re:Sharepoint is OK (1)

optimus-25 (977126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404032)

www.alfresco.org (maps a netbios drive so \\fileshare_A works as well as the web ui, check out the feature set) open source, j2ee

Re:Sharepoint is OK (3, Insightful)

HrothgarReborn (740385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404067)

I have actually used a wiki for this type of thing. It takes a bit more technically savvy set of editors but the markup is easy, versioning is tracked and everything instantly indexed, searchable and cross linked. Works really nice for documentation. If you want your docs written in word format though go with Sharepoint. You will not find a good GPL system for Word format. Subversion, and others like it will treat it like a binary file and just record new copies. No way to see diffs, etc.

Re:Sharepoint is OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15404095)

It's not open source, but my group has been using Confluence [atlassian.com] for developer documentation and I love it. It has a very polished user interface, is easy to configure, and uses web standards so you don't have to be running all MS crap to get anything done. We also use JIRA for bug-tracking and the way they tie together is very cool.

As far as open source alternatives, you can check out any of the hundreds of wikis out there. I think XWiki [xwiki.org] has a lot to offer.

Unfortunately, we've been told by management that we have to use Sharepoint. I've only used the services bundled with Windows 2003, so maybe it gets better, but using it from a Linux desktop with Firefox makes me want to claw my eyes out. It looks like something cobbled together over the weekend by a refugee from 1995.

Conclusion (1)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403725)

Sharepoint is clearly looking down upon Lotus notes.

Another "Well, DUH!" comment (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403783)

if you are focused on the Microsoft solution stack, SharePoint Portal Server 2003 is going to be hard to beat

What a surprise. Isn't that the whole point of Microsoft's platform strategy? That it's pretty much an all or nothing proposition?

Hope you don't need Mac/Linux users on Sharepoint (3, Insightful)

diatonic (318560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403809)

A lot of the UI functionality in Sharepoint depends on MS ActiveX controls. God help you if you use a non-microsoft browser. *VERY* painful.
 
:: diatonic ::

Re:Hope you don't need Mac/Linux users on Sharepoi (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15404266)

You are incorrect. There is no requirement for ActiveX installation of any kind within SharePoint unless you choose to use Office Web Components for some reason (and you wouldn't).

You may be thinking of some historical dashboard tools provided by Microsoft years ago.

The new 2007 version of the product has very, very good support for browsers of all kind (the 2003 variant is passable). Take a look at the new forms workflow component of SharePoint for example - support for Firefox, etc:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/servers/fo rmsserver/highlights.mspx [microsoft.com]

Recycled Boogie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403814)

Wasn't there an article here about three weeks ago that whether it was Scarepoint, Slowest Notes or Gropewise, that the average user finds collaboration software to be unnecessarily clumsy and time consuming? So much so that most revert to e-mail for collaborative communications!

I've used Both (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15403982)

In the company I work for, we use both systems, While Lotus is a full Giant monster, their Workflow implementation has a LOT of Bugs... I wouldn't put a critical process under that horrid scheme....

Sharepoint is simple.. very simple.. and there lies its weaknesses... (afeter downloading some sheets, you can enhance it.. but not so much..)

Sorry for the horrid grammar and vocabulary...

They compared the wrong products (1)

Lt. Pierogi (719477) | more than 8 years ago | (#15403997)

For ease of collaboration nothing beats Lotus QuickPlace (which runs on Lotus Notes) We switched from QuickPlace to SharePoint, and it completely sucked. The Lotus Notes client completely blows but the Lotus Notes server kicks ass.

Blowtus Goats vs. ScarePoint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15404010)

As much as I dislike SharePoint, I loath Blowtus Goats with a royal pashion. While developing it, I think the IBM developers took the George Costanza way of "doing the opposite" of that which makes sense. It's amazing that they couldn't even make a decent e-mail client with all the years of development that went into it, much less anything else.

Sharepoint v Twiki (2, Interesting)

Kurt Granroth (9052) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404016)

We use Sharepoint and Twiki nearly interchangeably at work. I don't have a problem with either of them. The people complaining about Sharepoint needing a lot of ActiveX controls must be using far more advanced features than are available on our installation. I access Sharepoint using Konqueror, Firefox, and Opera (on Linux) regularly and have never had any problems. I'll admit that I resisted when "they" started pushing Sharepoint on me since past experience with MS designed web applications has shown me their zeal to lock out everything but IE on Windows (*cough*MS Project Central*cough*)... but since using it, I have no complaints at all.

Typically, we use Sharepoint for any Microsoft formatted docs (xls, doc, ppt, etc) since Office 2003 has pretty decent support for Sharepoint built-in. Click on a spreadsheet and Excel will check it out, show you who is working on the file, and check it back in when you save. Pretty slick. Gnumeric comes pretty close in that it appears to check it out, but Sharepoint doesn't seem to recognize the checked out state so checking it back in is problematic.

We then use Twiki for docs that are more static (PDFs, typically) and for pages that are heavily customized. I'm sure that Sharepoint allows for very customized pages as well but we use what we know and we know Twiki.

Uh-huh? (1)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404082)

I wouldn't compare Notes 7 and Sharepoint. I'm using Notes 7 at work everyday, gets the job done. Watched last week as a Microsoft salesperson came to the company and held a Sharepoint presentation. Was nice but it assumed you were all Microsoft. We're not. Good if you are, otherwise I think you'll have issues integrating whatever non Microsoft you're using.

sharepoint sucks (1)

llbbl (822233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404129)

Anything by MS you know is gonna suck cause it's overpriced and they force you to use closed document standards. Novell GroupWise is the way to go!

They both suck (2, Informative)

Chazmyrr (145612) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404215)

I won't comment on the "collaboration" features, but a big part of Sharepoint and Domino are document repositories. Both of them have some major drawbacks in that area.

The big end user problem in Domino is the limited hierarchy. You have rooms, cabinets, folders, and files. People find it very limiting and confusing to be forced into that model. Some other issues involve poor performance and difficulty of performing backups because of certain design decisions that haven't been changed in the last 10 years. Everyone I've spoken to in my company hates using Domino.

Sharepoint offers unlimited hierarchy. The big problem in Sharepoint is security. You can set security on a respository but not on folders or documents. As far as I can determine, Windows authentication is required. This can be a real problem in a large corporation where various parts of the business have their own domains or active directory trees that aren't configured to trust the other domains or directories. Also, documents are differentiated and versioned entirely based on filename.

Sure, there are some things about document management that can be hard. I know from experience. I've written a document management system. That's why it amazes me that IBM and Microsoft haven't been able to put forth better offerings.

Wrong Products to compare (1)

Manitcor (218753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404217)

Why are we comparing 2 second string players in the industry to eachother? I would say BEA AquaLogic/Plumtree vs IBM would be a more valid article. However I dont take alot of stock in an article that glosses over the details of such a large discussion topic not to mention speaks as if Lotus and Microsoft are the only major players in this space.

Happy Fun Ball sig (1)

raftpeople (844215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404231)

That was one of the funniest SNL fake commercials I have ever seen!

Ghetto SharePoint (1)

gravyface (592485) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404255)

1. Take Office files.
2. Put in folders that make sense on shared drive.
3. Open Explorer, change View > Details. Right-click on column list, add Author, Date Modified, Owner, whatever.
4. Browse and send as attachment, open, edit, print.
5. Search > Advanced Search > "File Contents" for whatever.

Big reason for Sharepoint... (1)

neveragain4181 (800519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404320)

..is that the base version if free. It comes bundled with all Windows Server 2003 editions. I've worked with it a lot as a developer, which isn't much fun.

Sharepoint 'Portal' Server is the paid-for-product, but a lot of companies dip their toe in the free 'Windows Sharepoint Services' version and get hooked/caught. Both verions share the same code base, but Portal has more features (obviously).

Microsoft seemed to spend a lot of time getting the split between the free and paid for features just right. As soon as you have a couple of SP sites then it basically becomes impossible to manage them without 'upgrading'. That sometimes comes as a shock.

The MS Office team also provides a bunch of integration options for Sharepoint too, as in you can save directly into the 'Document Libraries' from Word/Excel, plus sync up your calendar in Outlook.

One important point to always consider about Sharepoint, and it's subsequent success, is that it has done well *because* of the OS and Office market Microsoft hold - without those two heavily linked in, it would never have sold on it's own, IMO.

Another example of Sharepoint's 'spread factor' is that you *must have* MS SQL Server, and most probably MS Active Directory too, to make it work - in case you haven't figured it out yet, once you touch Sharepoint you are more or less signing up for the complete Microsoft 'stack' across your desktops and servers.

Now Sharepoint is established off the back of Office/OS divisions (what's that M word again), it is actually getting better. The upcoming new drop with Office 2007 fixes most of the things wrong with SP 2003.

It's one of those situations that personally makes me go, hmmmm. It works well and is getting better, but you might feel you've been run over by the licensing truck...

- NA

Why Leave Out Apache and FOSS tools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15404362)

What's wrong with using an HTTP-based solution, that is, an intranet? Or use SSL, and proxy servers to run on the Internet?

IOW why not model it after the WWW, the best and largest collaboration tool in existence?

But..but..but (1)

ch33kymonk3y (717800) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404418)

That's really sharepoint portal server (quite expensive) v's Workplace services Express. Not Domino.

I have no idea! (1)

twocents (310492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404425)

I just wanted to add that I thank everyone on this board for working with these two pieces of software so I don't have to!

We went with Confluence (1)

puppetluva (46903) | more than 8 years ago | (#15404499)

We went with Confluence from atlassian for our knowledge sharing. It uses real open-standards, is easy to use and costs less.

It is a hell of a lot easier than either of those two behemoths, won't lock you into anything, and the company isn't going to force to you into upgrades you don't want and don't need.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...