Mitch Cohen gives the details on Lotus Connections and Domino LDAP

August 16 2007

Mitch Cohen, a IT professional at Colgate-Palmolive, is involved in many of the IBM betas. I have heard and seen Mitch at many of the beta and Design Partner events, and he knows his stuff. Mitch has detailed the process on how to make Lotus Connections work with Domino LDAP TODAY. Official Support is coming in Lotus Connections 1.0.2 this fall (October). Thanks Mitch!

On that note, just one comment. Many people have complained that Lotus Connections 1.0.0 did not ship with Domino LDAP support. Has anyone considered that a product designed to be attractive to non Domino shops had its first batch of PAYING customers with requirements for Tivoli and Active Directory? And why is that bad? I do not think it is.

6 Responses to “Mitch Cohen gives the details on Lotus Connections and Domino LDAP”

  1. 1) Nathan T. Freeman says:

    Why on earth did you feel the need to include that last question?

    It's bad because it's a product with the LOTUS banner that shipped without being able to work with the largest install base that LOTUS has.

    It's basically the equivalent of Microsoft shipping Silverlight for the Mac, and then saying "oh, yeah... we'll build a Windows version later."

    It gives life to the dying fire of "Domino isn't a strategic platform for IBM." Can you think of a move that would lend itself to that argument more than shipping a major new product, announced at Lotusphere, that delivers functionality redundant to Domino, and isn't compatible with Domino? Why not just hand out badges that say "George Bush doesn't care about Notes people?"

    It was a stupid, lazy decision based on resource constraints implying that either Connections or Domino isn't important enough to devote additional resources to. It's a 2003 move, not a 2007 move.

    A customer has helped remedy IBM's mistake. And IBM it working on remedying it themselves. Great. We can move past it. But that doesn't change the fact that failing to make the product compatible with Domino in version 1.0 was the last gasp of the Dark Times.

    Come to think of it, I think I might need to start calling Ted Stanton "Grand Admiral Thrawn."

    Okay, I'm just kidding. But it's funny.

    Now can we drop it?

  2. 2) Nathan T. Freeman says:

    Or maybe a better metaphor would be sung to the tune of WonderBoy?

    "Now let me tell you about Connections.... arch-rival and nemesis of Domino... with powers comparable to DOMINO..."

    "What powers? you ask... how 'bout the power of Profiles? That do anything for you? That's directory services, Holmes."

    "How about the power to post a blog... from two hundred yards away... with a WEB BROWSER!??! That's collaboration, John."

    "How 'bout the power... to connect you?"

  3. 3) John Head says:

    We should just agree to disagree here Nathan. The issue here is that Connections had a chance to ship with 2 directories supported. They picked the two that had customer license deals in place BEFORE the product shipped. Makes economic sense to me. Since Connections is targeted at companies with more than 3,000 users, there is a huge market out there for people not traditional Lotus customers. All of the LC sales we have completed or have in the pipeline are not Domino shops.

    I think it was the right decision. You do not. Since it is neither Monday or Tuesday, we can just disagree. :-)

  4. 4) Nathan T. Freeman says:

    You always speak of this as if it were an either/or. Like, in order to support ActiveDir and Tivoli for the targeted customers, they had to sacrifice Domino support. This isn't true. Support is not mutually exclusive. Clearly, it's possible, and not even all that difficult, as Mitch was one of several people already able to do it.

    Which means the matter was, and remains, Lotus's willingness to support such a configuration, not the "economics" of actually creating the functioning code.

    Again, let me reiterate -- you say they needed to support ActiveDir and Tivoli for the sake of those customers. I do not disagree. I have never disagreed. They simply ALSO needed to support their own flagship product, which has fought against rumors of its demise more often than I can count, at the first release.

    They didn't. That was irresponsible, mostly to their business partners, who are now made to suffer another round of Microsoft bashing IBM about not considering Domino strategic. That's not idle speculation -- Bernardo, Reeves and Co have ALREADY been doing that at every public opportunity.

    And it was only this boneheaded maneuver by the Connections team that has enabled them to make such comments.

    Hell, they could have offered a "limited availability" program and it would have shut down the bulk of the argument.

    I try to give IBM the benefit of the doubt, as I've reflected recently on my own blog. Hopefully, this kind of failure to pay attention to the history of their own products is the END of the long tail of product management blunders.

    By the way, rational thinkers with the same priors CANNOT agree to disagree. { Link }

    So, shall we simply say we have different prior beliefs about IBM's strategic wisdom?

  5. 5) Paul Mooney says:

    John... I will guess that this is aimed at me.

    I did complain. And I will complain again when Lotus does something this stupid.

    First, its perception. Nathan is right. We have just spent years getting rid of the "notes is dead" FUD. Then this. Total Madness!

    Second, Connections was announced at Lotusphere in January. Everyone was really excited. How many of the customers there would of wanted it to work with the Domino directory - I would guess many. Again, this is perception.

    Third, its a Lotus product. Support of the native directory source is a no brainer.

    Fourth, I had a paying customer for this product - They will now not purchase it.

    I got it working with the domino directory aswell, but it is an UNSUPPORTED configuration, which means that IBM will just wash their hands of it if anything goes wrong, and on a Release 1 product for a large rollout, that is too much of a risk. Very very few people have defended the decision that was made. Both on and offline, many people have agreed it was plain dumb.

  6. 6) John Head says:

    this was not aimed at you Paul ... more to Nathan than anyone. Which is why he railed me back. I understand what your saying, and apprecaite your feedback. Just my opinion for a 1.0.0 product. The great thing is we can all disagree and have a pint at the end of the day. Well, most of us :-)

Leave a Reply