Madness? Holmesglen TAFE upgrades GroupWise

29

novell

blog It’s been a while since I’ve seen any Australian organisation of any kind have any words of praise for Novell’s ailing GroupWise collaboration suite. The trend is overwhelmingly that organisations are continually ditching it for alternatives, typically Microsoft’s Outlook/Exchange platform. Organisations such as Fire + Rescue NSW, the NSW Parliament, Queensland Health, St George Bank and NSW Health have all migrated off GroupWise over the past few years. However, if an article published by ZDNet is to be believed (we recommend you click here for the full yarn), at least one organisation is sticking with the Novell warhorse:

“TAFE Victoria in Holmesglen has not changed its messaging and collaboration platform since it moved from Netscape to Novell’s GroupWise almost 10 years ago — and doesn’t plan to do so any time soon. Instead, the TAFE plans to upgrade to GroupWise 2014 …”

When it comes to collaboration solutions, Australian educational institutions have tended to standardise on two platforms recently, both cloud-based — either Microsoft’s Outlook/Exchange option or Google’s Gmail option. And there’s a reason they’re popular. They’re cheap, standardised, SaaS-based and relatively easy to administer. They provide an interface people expect. They’re both solid options.

I don’t have anything against GroupWise per se on technical and user interface grounds (I’m sure it’s a good solution), and I don’t like to criticise organisations for their IT choices if they have a strong rationale for making those choices. However, the truth is that collaboration solutions, in large organisations, have become increasingly commoditised and standardised over the past half-decade.

In this case, I find it hard to believe that many in the IT industry will see Holmesglen TAFE’s decision to completely buck this industry trend and continue to use GroupWise as anything other than “brave” — an epithet few people who work in IT want to see attributed to themselves. When it comes to basic IT services such as collaboration, you don’t want your organisation to stick out too much: You want to go with the herd, take the accrued standardisation benefit and focus on investing in specialist areas which will actually deliver you a competitive advantage.

It will be interesting to see how this implementation is going a few years down the track when email/collaboration platforms are even more commoditised and standardised than they already are.

Of course, it’s possible I am completely wrong about this. I will welcome divergent opinions in the comments section below this article. GroupWise fan? Tell me why it’s better than Outlook/Exchange and Gmail. This will help inform my opinion in future. Just be polite ;)

Image credit: a4gpa, Creative Commons

29 COMMENTS

  1. It’s probably hard to justify any onsite email infrastructure on it’s own, but from a technical perspective Groupwise is brilliant and far more robust than anything that comes out of Redmond. Having Administered numerous products over the years, I know exchange would be last on my list.

    Beyond that, It all depends on the organisation. Any product is kneecapped once you stick Outlook in front of it. Google Apps is brilliant, but the outlook connector isn’t great for email and doesn’t do a whole lot of enterprise collaboration stuff (hasn’t been updated much to my knowledge) that people expect out of outlook. Then there is the Groupwise client, features like easy sharing between staff members “Just Worked” more than 10 years ago. Exchange has it but it’s a bit of a nightmare (have not seen 2013).

    Alternative products such as Groupwise have decent outlook connectors. So if you want a solution that scales, has excellent support, there are worse choices. At the number of users they probably have, hosted exchange or Office 365 is going to be far more expensive. Even with an education discount.

    If the Outlook requirement is off the table, Google Apps is an easy pick and one I’ve been recommending for some time. You can have a new domain, with working email configured in under half an hour and never have to touch it again.

    • “Any product is kneecapped once you stick Outlook in front of it. ”

      what absolute rubbish. if you are installing an exchange infrastructure, why wouldn’t you put outlook in front of it, and if you aren’t, why would you? your argument makes no sense.

      perhaps you should use the latest versions of both products (exchange and outlook) before commenting on what they supposedly cannot do.

      and i am not sure about the fact you think that exchange doesn’t scale well. plenty of organisations with 50000+ employees seem to have no issues with exchange scaling.

      and considering the fact that plenty of businesses use exchange, it isn’t hard to find someone who can administer it properly.

      of course, if the business doesn’t need the power of exchange and outlook, then there are other options, but having this type of infrastructure gives you plenty of options.

      • Maybe I should have said any product except exchange, because why else would you install exchange and not run Outlook. :-)

        > perhaps you should use the latest versions of both products (exchange and outlook) before
        > commenting on what they supposedly cannot do.

        I’ve heard that for the last decade. Version Y doesn’t have the problems that Version X had. Colleagues of mine do run the later versions, I do like to keep myself up to speed with the alternatives.

        > and i am not sure about the fact you think that exchange doesn’t scale well. plenty of organisations with
        > 50000+ employees seem to have no issues with exchange scaling.

        Just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it’s easy. There are other products on the market that do it better than exchange. I’ve seen a local organisation run big exchange install and they have racks and racks of gear to do it. It’s a ludicrous amount of infrastructure to maintain for the amount of staff they have.

        I’ve Administered Exchange, Groupwise, Zimbra, Google Apps and a variety of linux based webmail solutions over the last decade. They all have their pros and cons.

        Personally I think for a small office, Google Apps wins hands down. But for bigger orgs it’s a tougher call to make. Zimbra or Groupwise sitting on top of SLES are pretty solid solutions. If you are already running groupwise and the in house knowledge, migrating to an alternative may cost a lot more.

        But if you’re a windows shop, then Exchange might be the right fit. Horses for courses really.

        • “Just because it can be done, doesn’t mean it’s easy. There are other products on the market that do it better than exchange. I’ve seen a local organisation run big exchange install and they have racks and racks of gear to do it. It’s a ludicrous amount of infrastructure to maintain for the amount of staff they have.”

          if they have that much gear, it hasn’t been done properly. don’t blame exchange for that.

          “Zimbra or Groupwise sitting on top of SLES are pretty solid solutions.”

          until you need someone to support it, especially groupwise…

  2. Exchange “cheap” and “relatively easy to administer”? In your dreams, Renai!

    I have no direct experience with Groupwise, but maybe, just maybe, TAFE Victoria likes it because it, you know, *does* stuff that Outlook/Exchange doesn’t?

    There’s a feature comparison here (although it’s from Novell, so take that as you will):

    http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise/features/groupwise-vs-outlook.html

    Ability to run the server on Linux would be a big tick in my book, as would bundled instant messaging.

    > The trend is overwhelmingly that organisations are continually ditching
    > it for alternatives, typically Microsoft’s Outlook/Exchange platform

    And? Lots of people pick their nose. Is that a good reason for me to start doing it too?

    • > The trend is overwhelmingly that organisations are continually ditching
      > it for alternatives, typically Microsoft’s Outlook/Exchange platform

      The reasons behind that decision should be considered. It’s usually political. From a technical standpoint, Exchange isn’t the best on the market. Though it is the most prevalent.

      • “It’s usually political.”

        No, it’s usually technical. Outlook/Exchange has improved out of sight over the past few years, and its new form as a SaaS/cloud option has taken it another step forward. Similarly, Google’s Gmail doesn’t have as many features or functionality, but users continually rate it as one option they prefer, often because of its simplicity and the fact that many people use it personally as well.

        • I’ll make a slight correction. Moving to a SaaS based solution, depending on business requirements is not a political move and probably quite sensible. But moving from something else to On premises Exchange, in my experience has been political, not technology based.

      • “From a technical standpoint, Exchange isn’t the best on the market.”

        what do you base this on?

          • but for what reasons?

            i have experience too, and would put exchange right at the pointy end of email/collaboration solutions for business.

          • Well Cost is a big one. Exchange is expensive compared to alternatives. Server Licenses, User Licenses, Exchange Licenses, CALs.

            That’s not a technical reason though.

            My biggest gripe is the way the mailstores work. There is nothing worse than waking up to find a store is offline with an ambiguous error code. Looks like as of 2010 online defrag is a thing, so that’s something at least. Powershell also is a nice addition (whilst not as good as other languages it was very useful for migrating off Exchange and leaps and bounds ahead of VB), but in that regard they are just getting things that other products have had for years.

          • “Looks like as of 2010 online defrag is a thing, so that’s something at least.”

            Hey mate, it’s not really useful comparing Exchange 2010 to anything … it went RTM in May 2009 — five years ago. I would recommend looking at Exchange 2013 …

            Renai

          • Actually I wasn’t making a comparison to 2010, note I said “As of”. Online defrag is a _Good Thing_.

            The overall architecture of Exchange 2013 (mail databases etc) is still the same. It requires a lot of maintenance and careful planning that just isn’t required with alternative platforms.

          • no more maintenance and careful planning than with other email products, IF you want it to work properly.

            maintenance and planning are required with all email platforms, especially on-site platform installations.

            expense of licenses is something that always gets trotted out when people want to slam exchange. if the company is big enough to need an onsite email infrastructure like exchange/windows, then chances are it can afford the licensing costs.

            other, not-as-common, email platforms such as groupwise (and linux-based platforms) may be cheaper to install, but i am willing to bet it’s harder to find someone to support and maintain it and i am also willing to be that those people invariably cost more to hire/contract, so the cost thing is not an apples for apples argument either.

            people like to slam exchange too, because it is run by microsoft. it’s a simple fact. but those people just refuse to admit to themselves that exchange is just as powerful and performs just as many functions as any other email platform.

  3. Follow the herd? What a superb idea. Don’t weigh your own needs/requirements, just do what everyone else does.

    Seriously, that is what you think organisations should do?

      • Its COTS, how is this in any way a custom solution?
        Is MS Exchange custom? Is Lotus custom? Is sendmail/postfix custom?

        There is absolutely a good business case for things like Google Mail and Office 365, but one must assume they have followed due diligence practices, and deployed the best solution for their set of circumstances?

        Even with a ‘cloud’ mail provider, you still need ‘custom’ configuration to make it work for your environment. You don’t just pay your $5/u/m and it ‘just works’ despite the marketing.

        I would have thought, determining requirements, assessing options, conducting ROI and functional specs. against those options, then deploying that which provides the ‘best bang for buck’ would be the way to go.. not what some other random organisations elects to do?

        • Sure, Groupwise is technically COTS, but I suspect it is likely to require far more integration effort into an IT environment than the more popular platforms from Microsoft or Google, simply because those using the more popular platforms are treading much more well-travelled paths. Resources and connecting software would, I suspect, be harder to obtain for a smaller platform like GroupWise.

          As for Sendmail/Postfix, yes, I would call that a custom deployment at this point, given that it requires self-administration at a much higher level than a cloud option from the likes of Microsoft or Google. There is just so much more manual configuration involved …

          • If they already had Groupwise, do you not think it is easier to upgrade an existing Groupwise platform, than migrate all the accounts and data over to another provider, along with replacing desktop client software, instant messaging software, and any internal custom configurations they may have made to the system over the last XXX years?

            By your definitions, anything that is not ‘cloud’ is now custom software?

            This article really says “they have done it wrong, and should use google and office 365” but said without the knowledge that is required to understand the implications of such a statement. You do not simply ‘migrate to gmail/365’ with a few clicks of a button, there is considerable work required to make that happen, especially in more complex environment.

            Having said that, despite the initil upfront work, both options are very attractive for a great number of organisations. But not all. Trying to fit one solution to all problems, just results in more problems.

          • “You do not simply ‘migrate to gmail/365′ with a few clicks of a button, there is considerable work required to make that happen, especially in more complex environment.”

            Of course you don’t — you’re right. But I would argue the ROI on continuing to invest in upgrading GroupWise is not there, given that email has become commoditised. There is no competitive advantage over the long term to maintaining this kind of unpopular solution.

          • Clearly, the sums that the TAFE in question did (with real figures – for their environment, with their setup, with their costings, with their…) resulted in a different outcome.

            Yet, your suggesting you know their ROI better than they do?

            I would absolutely question the long term direction for an organisation re-deploying Groupwise, but this may simply be the last upgrade to enable them to migrate to Gmail in a more planned fashion. but I would never suggest they have picked the wrong horse, when I have no idea what sort of horse they need.

          • To be honest, SaaS based email isn’t always cheaper. If you have the in house expertise the cost may be more than onsite. In this case they were already maintaining a groupwise installation, being that it’s actually a pretty straight forward system to maintain, upgrading is a no brainer. Novell Support is also excellent if you do require it.

  4. I have no idea how large their Groupwise (GW) system is but being a GW admin I’d say that a GW upgrade rather than a migration would have been a very simple operation as Leon said. An upgrade probably measured in hours is way more cost effective than a migration that may take weeks, possibly months. Perhaps this is something that factored heavily in their decision?

    The other thing is GW just works with very little input from an admin, another plus if you ask me.

    If users (and developers) could get over to their addiction to MS Outlook they would quickly learn that GW is a very viable solution for organisations of all sizes.

  5. Interesting perspective – that following the herd is the smart business decision. It seems to be the norm these days, just do exactly what everyone else is doing regardless, because, well, the crowd is always correct, right?

    Sorry for the sarcasm, but it’s necessary to point out the failure in logic. Following is safer, true. Following is less risky, but it guarantees no advantages. If you want competitive advantages you need to do something different. The trick is to manage the risk by choosing where to deviate from the herd.

    It’s true that Exchange is becoming a commodity, hosted service. This is primarily because the cost is so high. I have done quite a few Groupwise to Exchange migrations for different companies; the decision was always made without me. Migration costs are always high; ongoing costs likewise. In earlier days both were 2-4 times the cost of staying on Groupwise even with an upgrade. These days that cost differential is less, unless you consider that the exchange migration includes the required virtualization environment. Even if systems are already virtualized the space and virtual host requirements for Exchange are many times that of Groupwise. Consider that a DAG (Data Access Group) requires duplicate data stores and Exchange dropped single instance storage. In my current position our 25 GB Groupwise storage (with about 100 GB for archives) grew to a pair of 300 GB volumes for the DAG so we could retain 120 days of mail, then the 1.2 TB email archive system. The virtual linux systems running Groupwise used 1/10 the virtual resources their replacement does, putting a serious load on our ESX hosts – and that doesn’t count the archive system (which, coincidentally is EOL next year).

    license cost appears to be lower with Exchange – after all, the Outlook client comes with Office. But it’s necessary to buy Enterprise CALS for anything interesting, including all those Exchange advanced features. Add that to the need for a CAL for every resource that will send messages (1/4 of our CALS are for what were free resources under Groupwise) and the cost of migration is a lot higher. Then there’s the difference between the normal annual subscription for Groupwise that includes unlimited support; you don’t get that with exchange.

    I won’t argue that more people seem to prefer the Outlook client these days – more people have used nothing else. I can say that, 3 years after the migration I still have users ask when (not if) we can change back. Some of this is odd problems individual users have with receiving messages, more is the crazy way Outlook handles contacts, both shared and for laptops that have local caching enabled. Most of it is the awkward way shared resources are handled. A bit of it is just different, but it’s undeniable that most of it is simply that with Groupwise sharing, both ad hoc by users and planned by IT is simply better. The migration was a wrenching process – I spent more than a month doing little more than working on shared resources after the migration and key users spent longer. Those people spend about 10% of their time managing those shared resources now which doesn’t sound like much, but these people are key resources by the nature of their position, and the impact is huge.

    Keep these things in mind when advocating migrating to Exchange, and remember there’s a reason hosted Exchange services are gaining in popularity. Consider the full costs of moving before deciding.

  6. To be frank, I used Novell GroupWise last year. But recently i migrated from GroupWise to MS Outlook by using Stellar GroupWise to PST Converter. I did this migration because of interactive GUI & speed of MS Outlook.

Comments are closed.