The Microsoft Apologists Are At It Again?
Microsoft has been unusually quiet about
the debacle known as the "Application
Analyzer Tool". Although
Paul Mooney has thoroughly examined both the beta and production versions
of this tool and found them seriously wanting, that has not stopped Microsoft
Apologist and Business Partner Paul Robichaux
from singing the praises of this tool and writing incorrect statements
about Lotus Notes applications, as well as the future of Lotus Notes itself
in the latest online edition of Windows
IT Pro Magazine. I will not review
the article here, since you can go
read it yourself. But I will
republish the comments I left for you here:
"Paul,
I really hate when you get your basic facts wrong, creating fear, uncertainty
and deceit.
1. WCS is not a replacement for Lotus Notes. Notes is NOT going away. Hannover
does represent the next step in a workplace managed client,
but this is very different than WCS.
2. The application analyzer tool has been evaluated and tested in both
beta/production versions by
Paul Mooney and
others and found to basically be a piece of garbage (cannot put any other
words here). To spin how bad this tool as one that "As with any other
automated tool that attempts to interpret code, its results still require
human interpretation." is disingenuous at best.
I would encourage the editors of this publication, and you, to do more
fact checking before publishing inaccurate data.
Oh, and I did not realize that MS was now referring to rip and replace
of Exchange infrastructures as "Migration". Note that this is
NEVER an
issue with Lotus Notes upgrades!"
That is all I have to say on the topic at this time.
Comment posted by Duffbert03/15/2006 06:02:10 PM
Homepage: http://www.twduff.com
Nice post... :)
03/15/2006 10:40:17 PM
Comment posted by Ben Langhinrichs03/15/2006 09:34:51 PM
Homepage: http://www.GeniiSoft.com/showcase.nsf/GeniiBlog
I should probably stay out of this debate as it is such a time waster, but I have to say I think this is one of those areas where Notes supporters tend to reflexively despise anything Microsoft does without clear headed analysis, and Microsoft supporters tend to reflexively support anything Microsoft does , also without any clear headed analysis.
The Application Analyzer Tool does not appear to me to be anywhere near as bad as it is made out to be, partly because the Notes supporters tend to exaggerate its claims, and so do the Microsoft supporters. It has some weaknesses, and is prone to abuse by those who claim too much power, but it actually does much of the very limited scope of what it promises. Sure, it is used by those want to spread FUD, but how many times have you heard Notes supporters talking about rip and replace when it comes to the Microsoft suite? You think that isn't FUD? How is Oh, and I did not realize that MS was now referring to rip and replace of Exchange infrastructures as "Migration". not spreading FUD? Microsoft is being perfectly honest that it requires a migration to go from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003, and they provide tools to do so automatically. I certainly remember people in the Notes community talking about how rich text/NSF should be replaced by HTML or SQL or whatever, and how IBM should provide a way to move the data seamlessly. Would that be "rip and replace", or does that term only come into play for a technology you don't like?
It is time for those of us in the Notes community to stop acting like Microsoft is the evil empire, the Borg, etc. etc. There are plenty of things Microsoft does wrong, but I can remember more than a few times in the past couple of years when IBM has made some pretty clear moves to make Notes obsolete. The fact that Workplace is now seen as including Notes is not a clarification of a long held position, it is a revision of earlier plans, and I think we all know it. IBM isn't evil either, but assuming it is the Good and the Protector and all that is baloney and likely to lead to some pretty hurt feelings when IBM blithely goes on making choices in its own interest and not that of its partners. It is often the ultra-loyal who become the ultra-betrayed, and we owe it to ourselves to not fall into the trap of "IBM, right or wrong".
Oh well, I might as well suggest that Democrats and Republicans start thinking like people and not partisans. I guess we just live in a divisive world right now.
03/15/2006 11:11:16 PM
Comment posted by Rob McDonagh03/15/2006 10:01:14 PM
Homepage: http://www.CaptainOblivious.com
The issue with the Application Analyzer, Ben, is the way it can be used unethically, as Paul Mooney reported today: http://pmooney.net/blogsphe.nsf/d6plinks/PMOY-6MWTJN
It isn't so much the MS is eeeeeeevil, while IBM is grrrrrrreat. But to me, there is a genuine, fundamental, objective difference between the two companies' business practices.
03/16/2006 09:36:17 AM
Comment posted by Roberto Boccadoro03/16/2006 08:31:00 AM
Homepage: http://www.yellowisthenewblack.com
Ben - Sorry, but I disagree with you. As Rob said, the problem is that the tool can be used in a unethical way. I may be the blindest of the blind, but I do not see Microsoft advertising the tool with a promise of a "very limited scope". They just use it to spread FUD hinting that you can migrate Notes apps easily. After all, when they run it, all the apps fall in Q1 or Q2......
We're not "the Good and the Protector and all that", and yes I agree we sometimes do something wrong, but you have to concede to IBM that we never used this "spread lies" approach.
RoB
03/16/2006 10:38:17 AM
Comment posted by Ben Langhinrichs03/16/2006 09:16:35 AM
Homepage: http://www.GeniiSoft.com/showcase.nsf/GeniiBlog
IBM never spreads lies? You never have an IBM rep who claims that Notes is not up to the task, but Websphere is? You never get an IBM rep who talks about Microsoft's "rip and replace" strategy without mentioning the tools used to handle the self described "migration". You have never heard an IBM person describe Notes as "80's technology". You have never heard an IBM rep stretch the truth about how easy it would be to migrate from Exchange to Notes (or miss the fact that you probably have to buy third party migration tools to accomplish the task well)?
While I think IBM is a bit more ethical than Microsoft, that may only be because I tend to hear things from their side. I don't know. I just know that it would be hard to tell from the snap judgements which I hear made every day.
03/16/2006 11:09:17 AM
Comment posted by Christopher Byrne03/16/2006 09:51:55 AM
Homepage: http://www.controlscaddy.com/
And the reality is, if you believe WikiPedia, the term FUD has actually been attributed to IBM Behaviours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD
"FUD was first defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products.""
And IBM is guilty in the recent example of the bloggers posting that IBM was not going to pay MS for Vista, but was going to go 100% to Linux desktops. I have yet to see someone from IBM come out and say this was incorrect. And even though Volker weber has commented on Jon Vaughn's blog that he verified it was incorrect, he has not posted anything on his blog to this effect (at least not that I have seen).
03/16/2006 01:37:17 PM
Comment posted by Ed Brill03/16/2006 12:30:20 PM
Homepage: http://www.edbrill.com
It was reported in the press (CRN among others) as being a misquote.