3 ms·
When discussing Lotus Notes it’s useful to have a good understanding of two perspectives. Some view it as an ugly version of Outlook/Exchange, but those functio
by orev 3y ago
When discussing Lotus Notes it’s useful to have a good understanding of two perspectives. Some view it as an ugly version of Outlook/Exchange, but those functions were not really the point of it (so comparisons to Outlook/Exchange aren’t really correct). It was really a development platform, and email, calendar, tasks, etc. would be better understood as “sample apps” that could be built on it.
As mentioned in the article, this was a time when apps were built native to the OS, and deployment and updates were a full time job for the IT department. Notes encapsulated all these apps in a single app launcher in a standard way they could be deployed and managed.
The best comparison today is not Outlook/Exchange, but the whole Web itself which addressed the same problem of apps in a more universal way. However Notes enabled this at least a decade before the Web was advanced enough to handle this.
- robocat 3y ago> The best comparison today is not Outlook/Exchange, but the whole Web itself Data had bidirectional replication with the server. Apps ran from local NoSQL databases on your machine which you synced it up with the server including the App code. The Web runs apps on servers, Notes not so much.
- ithkuil 3y agoA significant part of the web nowadays runs code in your browser and interacts with a thin layer in front of a database. A much part of the web uses a local in-browser db and syncs it up with a database on the server.
- randombits0 3y agoI agree. Had IBM FOSS’ed the client, there would have been no web, or at least not without a lot of alternate history.