I was a developer at Iris Associates--I worked on versions 2 through 4. For version 3 I stuck in an easter egg in the About box. A certain combination of keys would produce a Monty-Python-like cut-out of Ray Ozzie's head and the names of the developers would fly out of his mouth. [This was when the software world was young and innocent and developers were trusted far beyond what they probably should have been.]
Lotus Notes was, I firmly believe, a glimpse of the future to come. In 1996, Lotus Notes had encrypted messaging, shared calendars, rich-text editing, and a sophisticated app development environment. I had my entire work environment (email, calendar, bugs database, etc.) fully replicated on my computer. I could do everything offline and later, replicate with the server.
And this was two years before the launch of Google and eight years before GMail!
In the article, the author speculates that the simplicity of the Lotus Notes model--everything is a note--caused it to become too complicated and too brittle. I don't think that's true.
Lotus Notes died because the web took over, and the web took over because it was even simpler. Lotus Notes was a thick client and a sophisticated server. The web is just a protocol. Even before AI, I could write a web server in a weekend. A browser is harder, but browsers are free and ubiquitous.
The web won because it could evolve faster than Lotus Notes could. And because it was free. The web won because it was open.
Lotus Notes as a thick client application was a dead end but the Domino server could have lived on as a back end database for web applications, if IBM had any vision. The core technology of a fast, secure NoSQL document database with multi-master replication actually worked really well (at least after they fixed the index corruption race condition bug that I found). But it had a weird stupid limit of (I think) 64GB per file with no automatic sharding support. And they never added XML or JSON as native data types. So it gradually became useless. What a shame.
Look at the history of Lotus Notes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Notes#History )Development began in 1984. 64MB was large back then, maybe 64GB total was seen, but multiples of 64GB?
I guess Lotus/IBM decided to stop upgrading Lotus Notes as computer limits were increased.
Obligatory Damien Katz Lotus Notes Formula Engine Rewrite (it is a great story but also shows the limits the original devs had to deal with; n.b. scroll down to read Ray Ozzie's comment): see https://web.archive.org/web/20050110035626/http://damienkatz...
I don't remember the details but IBM did increase the Domino file size limit a couple of times. The original limit was even smaller than 64GB. Eventually they gave up and stopped investing in the platform so after a few years it fell hopelessly behind advancements in storage hardware technology.
I'm curious about this part: "The Notes formula language was good ish for the time but really became very dated, and the alternative LotusScript was a dead end too."
IIRC LotusScript was basically VB but with a different object model. Why was it a dead end?
Back then a lot of software particularly in the windows world wasn’t very good at talking to anything else. Today everything talks to everything.
Notes already had so many problems it was sunk and lotuscript which as you say was like script. Good but not enough to stop the titanic hitting the iceberg.
It wasn't that hard to get data out. IBM released a native Windows ODBC driver for Domino databases. Since the underlying database was non-relational you couldn't really use it for SQL queries with complex joins but for basic data export tasks it worked fine.
Java became available as an alternative to Lotuscript on the backend, I believe in version 5, and Javascript was made available on the frontend around that time. Although maybe I'm thinking of the web version of the frontend.
Lotus Notes died because it was proprietary. Had it been open: an open server and open protocol, I believe every device would be using it today.
I had one good dose of that platform for four years. It was a biotech with ~100 people in five countries[1], and four states in the US. There were Notes servers all over the place, and it worked with skeletal admin resources on neglected, low cost Dell boxes. It worked for management, sales and the labs.
[1] US, Germany, France, Japan and Canada, in that order.
M365 is used only because it is the continuation of MS Office, which had been entrenched in most companies for many decades.
In the beginning, the fact that MS Office was proprietary had nothing to do with communication protocols, but only with the file formats.
The need to convert between proprietary file formats had always existed in an enterprise setting, which is why all such products, including MS Office, had extensive support for importing the file formats of their competitors, so this was never a serious obstacle for adoption.
Cut my teeth in Lotus Notes development. The combination of forms, views, and agents with the Notes security model was really powerful. I look at products like Notion and Coda and see nothing but Notes forms and views and formulas everywhere. Ray Ozzie was way ahead of his time.
I don't see it. Airtable is cloud-native and Lotus Notes is all about offline mode and replicas. Not even sure how Email fairs in Airtable, because it's a major point in Notes.
I am still convinced, that one way to foster professionalism in working e-mail and to facilitate collaboration would be to use e-mail as the interface for a content management system:
- incoming e-mails are categorized by organization sending/topic (until a project can be associated)
- all attachments are stripped off and stored on the server using a hierarchy which the recipient is prompted to update
- outgoing e-mails are treated in the same fashion in reverse, so a link to a file on a server is moved to the CMS and then included as a clickable link
(probably employees would have to have a separate company-sponsored e-mail for insurance correspondence)
One of the things that killed it is it suffered the same issue as Visual Basic in that time.
Anyone could create an application. 99% of the time that anyone had 0 UX experience and created travesties that were horrible to use. So people associated the poorly designed database with the product.
Another major issue was that the first implementation most people saw of it was the email side, and it could be a truly clunky and unpleasant email client. This soured opinions before people delved into the document management and programmability features that email handling were just one use of.
From a technical point of view one of the bonuses I saw was that it used PKI throughout for encryption and such, which very little other software did. Though this was also clunky at times especially for non-technical users (has anyone ever made the use of PKI a smooth process for those who don't care to know the details?). Proper ACL management too rather than more simplistic permissions, but again this could be very clunky.
Though I'm not sure why we are talking entirely in the past tense, while Domino & Notes are not widely used anymore, they are still out there and developed (under the name HLC Notes) with the last release (adding LLM based “AI” features, of course…) was Jun last year and a bugfix update a few months later. My experience with Domino/Notes was in the 00s and early 10s when I was the accidental admin (the only guy who really understood it left) of a mail and document server based on it, hopefully the clunkiness complaints at least have been addressed since then.
There were UX horror stories on the web as well. I guess it is the physical connection of having to start up your Notes application in work and being forced to use poorly designed apps.
I think another difference is that the Cambrian explosion of web apps vying for user attention meant that many web users had experience using both poorly-designed web apps as well as well-designed web apps and could gravitate towards the latter.
Whereas many Notes applications were internal so there was no "survival of the fittest" and the UI toolkit was passable at best. As a result, many Notes users never experienced a well-designed Notes app.
Notes isn't exactly dead. A couple of years ago I helped a swedish county extract social services data from a system built on it, which is still in use by quite a few other counties.
Among other things I wrote a batch converter from the XML based export format to PDF files packaged according to a standard for digital archives, and we brought on a specialised consultant to help us out inventing an export for system logs.
I expect there to be many products still out there that are actually built on but not advertised as LotusNotes, waiting for someone like me to come along and figure out how to decommission them. As a RAD platform Notes/Domino is apparently highly productive for those that still know how to do it.
I can only really compare it with Access, and between the two, you can get a bit more done a bit more easily with Notes over MS Access, but that's another application that didn't get a clear path to modern usage.
Ahm, it didn't. I mean, yes it is actively dying but not quite there yet. In fact, where I work we still make good revenue offering consulting and even products for LND. I think this part at the end of the article sums it up well:
> Lotus Notes is now HCL Notes, and as far as I can tell HCL intends to just enjoy the revenue as long as legacy customers will pay them to keep Notes running.
Yes, there are, and I dare say, a lot of legacy customers still paying for LND. So it is dying, but not as fast as people tend to think.
Baffling to see this, in every place I've worked at that used Lotus Notes, it was an absolute dog on the system. Clunky, slow, and ground everything else to a halt. And this was the case even on a relatively modern laptop in 2019. Not what I'd call performant at all!
Notes was simple enough to allow folks with no computer science background or even sympathy for the machine to build teetering, badly-performing things.
However, even with a mind towards efficiency and minimalism, performance at roughly hundreds of thousands of documents was extremely elusive.
It wasn't performant, and it didn't scale. I was in a Notes shop in the mid-nineties and it was dog slow for practically everything in a perhaps fifty person company.
Lotus Notes was, I firmly believe, a glimpse of the future to come. In 1996, Lotus Notes had encrypted messaging, shared calendars, rich-text editing, and a sophisticated app development environment. I had my entire work environment (email, calendar, bugs database, etc.) fully replicated on my computer. I could do everything offline and later, replicate with the server.
And this was two years before the launch of Google and eight years before GMail!
In the article, the author speculates that the simplicity of the Lotus Notes model--everything is a note--caused it to become too complicated and too brittle. I don't think that's true.
Lotus Notes died because the web took over, and the web took over because it was even simpler. Lotus Notes was a thick client and a sophisticated server. The web is just a protocol. Even before AI, I could write a web server in a weekend. A browser is harder, but browsers are free and ubiquitous.
The web won because it could evolve faster than Lotus Notes could. And because it was free. The web won because it was open.