Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to wrap my head around SharePoint. Why is it good? Why is it bad?
At a glance it appears to offer some incredible collaboration tools. However, the cost looks astronomical and it seems to be rigid & difficult to customize.
To those who've worked with SharePoint; please describe something good and something bad about it.
Pros:
Document management is its most well-known
function and integrates extremely
well with Office 2007.
Create group calendars that can be
overlayed onto your personal Outlook
and managed on the web.
Notifications in response to certain
actions on the group website
Wiki-type functionality with full
integration into the Office stack.
Full database backend which gives
you the reliability and safety of a
true RDBMS.
Extremely customizable if you choose
to develop custom websites using
ASP.NET (not the built-in wizard/gui
editor).
Form-data collection
Cons:
Freebie version is somewhat limited
on customization.
How to handle multiple editors to a
single file is not obvious.
Workflow for offline editing of
documents is non-obvious.
Very steep learning curve to use it
the right way.
Getting people to use it is like
getting people to go to the dentist.
Out-of-the-box templates don't do a
lot.
Customizing without writing code
really limits your options.
Integration with older versions of
office is ugly
Mac integration is non-existant (has
this changed recently?)
It has pretty good Office 2007 integration. As an example, Excel understands when you have a file checked out and will let you check it in (with comments) when you close it. The document management features simplistic version control (although it's not required; you can go with a single version for each file).
In SharePoint, everything is essentially a list internally and it's very easy to create a custom one. On a related note, I haven't used either yet, but it supposedly works well with workflows and InfoPath.
On the downside, it's pretty much a resource beast. It requires multiple machines with powerful specs, particularly if you want to "really" use it for document management and to be the backbone of your intranet/internet site. It scales to an extent, but it's not pretty from my vantage point.
Customizing it presents it's own challenges. You really need people focused on it full time, as both administration and customization require their own impressive learning curves.
Lastly, some of the out of the box parts are poorly implemented. The wiki is a prime example; it's basically useless in my opinion. So one thing to keep in mind is that some may consider SharePoint as a whole package as "best in class" (not saying I do!), its individual features often are not.
Good
Out of the box, it offers a ton of functionality and power, even for the stock web parts. Just creating a library of documents that anyone can open/edit/upload to is simple...even for those non-web-savvy amongst us.
Bad
Pretty much everything else.
The "Discussion Board" is a glorified Outlook email chain.
The disconnect between achieving similar results in SharePoint Designer 2007 and using the web interface are jarring and annoying
Attempting to customize the look and feel of a SharePoint site usually ends in complete disaster. Especially with WSS 3.0.
The nickel & diming scheme between the WSS 3.0 and MOSS 2007 tiers is absolutely painful; WSS 3.0 is just barely functional enough to be extremely frustrating to use
Changing MS styles is almost impossible due to their horribly-laid-out and obnoxiously large CSS file.
IT IS 2009...GET RID OF THE TABLES FOR NON-TABULAR DATA ALREADY!
It's a beast to use. And handing two complete rebranding projects for two totally different areas of the company is driving me to the point of a nervous breakdown. Especially when opening the core.css file occasionally results in all the styles I've redefined getting reset to the defaults. Without anything done by me other than just OPENING the file. And there is no ability to undo these changes.
Good thing: Great communication tool. Instead of sending out a company wide email you can post an announcement to your SharePoint site. Users can subscribe to an RSS feed of the announcements or have a email alert sent to them when the list is updated.
Bad thing: Error messages displayed on a SharePoint site are generic and the link to help resolve the issue rarely is of any help.
Good:
It can be a great collaboration tool. Beginning developing for sharepoint is simple, assuming you are familar with ASP.NET webparts.
Bad:
The development lifecycle isn't fully implemented. There are no built-in facilities for testing, among other things.
SharePoint is evolving and becoming a better collaboration tool for Microsoft Office environments. It plays well in a small to medium sized business setting. It is critical to implement “best practices” on setup; otherwise it will quickly become a nightmare to maintain and to use.
For “best practices” here are two books that I recommend for SharePoint 2007:
Essential SharePoint 2007
Sharepoint 2007
A lot of the cool things in Sharepoint are avaialable in Windows Sharepoint Services 3.0, which is free with windows server 2003/2008. All you need extra is a license for SQL Server 2000 and later, which most mirosoft shops have. In WSS you can do document management, workflows, custom sites, blogs, wiki's, etc.
If you need Excel Services, Forms Server, CMS, or some of the other MOSS features, then that's another thing. And yes, it does cost a lot of money, but it' cheaper than doing it from scratch in most cases.
Pluses:
- Great object model.
- A lot of good features just come out of the box.
Minuses:
- Steap learning curve to do things the right way.
- It's very easy to hang yourself by doing things the wrong way.
- Debugging and deployment is about as pleasurable as root canal.
good :
A lot of things can be done. Wokflowks, InfoPath forms, Excel Services, Business Data Catalogs and etc.
Bad :
You won't be able to do these described easily. Must have sharepoint administrative and development skills for good solutions that don't improve quickly.
If you have a license for Microsoft Server 2003 then you can install the standalone version of Sharepoint for FREE!
Download Sharepoint
The install is very simple when using the internal database.
Microsoft Office Sharepoint Designer 2007 is a must have for any customization.
I have created a couple Company Intranets using Sharepoint and have been very pleased with its features.
Microsoft Office 2007 interfaces nicely with sharepoint.
I have found Sharepoint to be very powerful and easy to learn. There are lots of people developing sites using sharepoint. The level of customization is awesome. The simplest customization is done in your browser, the next level is using Microsoft Sharepoint Designer 2007, and finally using Visual Studio to create new apps(webparts).
Related
I went to the Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 launch event in Minneapolis yesterday and was slightly surprised by how much they were trotting out SharePoint and improved SharePoint development in Visual Studio 2010.
SharePoint is something I've largely ignored over the years as a web developer and solution architect on a small development team. I was always under the impression that SharePoint was used mostly for intranets in large corporations, and that if you were developing for SharePoint, it meant that a corporate decision had been made to use it and you as a developer probably had few (if any) options.
I realize this assumption is probably incorrect. So, what are the "cool" uses for SharePoint? What unique business problems have you solved using it? What could make a developer excited to be working on something for SharePoint?
Document libraries in a Microsoft environment. There are many nice out-of-the-box features for managing documents.
Intranet sites that have permissions setup in such a way to allow business entities to control use of the site within their group.
Project requirements lists. List in SharePoint can be customized to some degree without ever programming.
As a conclusion so far, SharePoint is a blessing and a curse. It has a lot of value-adds, though anything outside that box is difficult change, but there are indeed many 'hooks' to do just that. WSS3.0 is free for Windows Server 2003, as is SP 2010 Foundation for Server 2008, so you can get quite a bit out of that without upgrading to MOSS or 2010 equivalent.
It's probably best used in intranet/extranet scenario's, true. There's many public facing internet sites built on it as well, if you find that cool :)
See http://www.topsharepoint.com/ (I built one of the top-10 sites ;)
It's definately not the best web content management platform but it is not bad and companies like people who have learned to manage their intranet to be able to seamlessly do the same for the internet site.
Personally I find it "cool" that I can deliver functionality quickly and without building the world from scratch (I've built enough document management solutionettes and prefer not to do it ever again). But if I have to custom build there's many footholds for customization and all of the .NET platform is available. There's workflow solutions that allow business users to customize their own workflows and not bug me with them. I'm sure there's plenty of other solutions out there that can do something similar but the integration with Microsoft Office and the rest of the Microsoft world is quite good IMHO.
I don't understand the antagonism against SharePoint and find it's mostly fueled by ignorance and people trying to use the platform for something it wasn't meant to do (like being a relational database). You will have to learn it; it's not like adding ELMAH to your project, it's a really big layer in your architecture.
From my experience, this is adding minor features at increased implementation and maintenance cost in comparison with using just "pure" Microsoft.Net, ASP.NET and IIS application.
Sharepoint 2007 = ( no concept of deployment version control etc, narly css/skinning, weird cms features, sp webparts not recommended, very limited worfklow features)
Sharepoint 2010 = ( is everything fixed? )
The generic feeling I have is to stay away from Sharepoint, implement in pure asp.net using proven patterns and practices, architecture etc. And just consume Sharepoint services when suitable.
Is Sharepoint 2007 or 2010 ready for real line of business applications running extranet with thousands of users, or should we just go for asp.net?
Unfortunately there is no clear cut answer to your question, I guess the proverbial "It Depends" is the best answer.
SharePoint 2010 is a big improvement over SharePoint 2007. But, most of these improvements are in the plumbing for Shared Services. So the functionality that is provided with typical collaboration sites is more or less the same.
Not to say that MS did not make major investments in everyone of your concern areas (deployment versioning, skinning, content management, etc).
My guess is if you were not happy with SharePoint 2007, you will probably still be unhappy with SharePoint 2010.
Considering that I've built several externally-facing Internet applications on SharePoint 2007 with thousands of users, yes, I'd say that 2010 is ready.
In addition to what the guys have already said:
Just like anything, you get what you pay for. Unfortunately there are a lot of cowboy SharePoint developers out there who keep repeating their wrong approach which causes problems in the long term. This then forms a bad vibe about the the product.
I've been working with SharePoint 2007 since its betas. I did lots of cowboy development myself (not that I realised at the time). I had the same opinion you did at the start but now that I know what I know, I've changed my mind about it. SharePoint 2007 is an absolute monster. Once you understand what it does well and what it doesn't do well, you'll realise that is a great product. Its only let down by a documentation and understanding. My team and I have managed to roll out many SharePoint sites and the clients are very happy with them.
The question is, is SharePoint 2010 going to be well documented?!
The other major question for me is, will it have better Error reporting (some meaningful errors instead of the non-sense it currently displays)
I have a few colleagues looking into 2010 right now as well as some MVP's I've previously worked with, they're reporting 2010 is great. There are some tricky bits to it e.g. the Ribbon but nothing that a good developer won't overcome.
I work for a large organization and we have been utilizing SharePoint for document library. Yesterday my boss called me to his office and asked me:
"I heard that SharePoint is an ECM! So what can it do for us?".
"What kind of problem do you want us to solve utilizing SharePoint?", I replied.
"I want to know what it means when they say it is a ECM and how it can help us?", He said.
I told him it has Document Management, WorkFlow, Records Management, Search and some other stuff.
Anywho, He wants me to put togetter a list of things that SharePoint offers as an ECM.
You might find some useful info on the MS ECM team's blog.
Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server has a substantial content management system available. What was previously Microsoft Content Management Server was discontinued and that functionality was put under the Sharepoint umbrella. Usually this is referring to web content, but it can honestly be any kind of content relevant to an enterprise. It is intended to be a direct competitor to all the major WCMS out there, focused especially on the enterprise (governance, auditing, security model, etc).
That having been said, the current iteration of MOSS's EWCM pretty much blows. If you can develop your CM strategy to be parallel to MOSS, it can work out OK, otherwise it's much more pain than it's worth. Use SP for document management and use something else for content management.
Sharepoint is a collaboration platform restricted to a windows environment
Give Alfresco communities (labs) a go is my opinion here as it 'acts' as a Sharepoint server so Microsoft Office suite will not notice the difference but your wallet will...
Er... think the boss got a bit too much $$$ to spend. But really, an't we supposed to deploy a technical solution to solve a business problem.
The list of features can be found at
http://sharepoint.microsoft.com/product/capabilities/Pages/default.aspx
Basically need to use SharePoint (because we promote MS yay!) as a content management system for an internet facing site.
How do I get rid of the default SharePoint look and feel and make it look like however I want it to?
I know the process involves creating a new masterpage with SharePoint Designer. However I prefer to code webpages rather than use a visual editor. Is this possible? Do I need knowledge of .NET?
Just check out ferrari.com for a very well made redesign of a SharePoint site.
Heather Solomon's Branding SharePoint series would be a good place to start. There's a lot you can do just with CSS, JS and HTML, but the most complete solutions (like Ferrari) require some pretty extensive customization with .NET and other SharePoint development techniques (features and delegate controls, in particular).
Your branding effort will be a lot easier if you only need to heavily brand the public-facing "publishing pages", from which you can remove most of the SharePoint-specific elements that make branding difficult.
Also, SharePoint Designer has a source view if you don't like the visual editor.
Yes it is possible to make it look like however you want it to (as you've seen from the Ferrari site). However to create that sort of site takes a lot of work.
Microsoft recommend the use of SharePoint Designer for 'designing' pages and layouts. However changing their behaviour almost always needs Visual Studio and development in .NET. You can largely avoid SharePoint Designer (which may worth considering as it can be a PITA) with an open source tool such as SPVisualDev. Use this with WSPBuilder for packaging your solutions (and avoid VSeWSS where possible).
Considering it sounds like you're just getting started, be aware this is a big topic with a reasonable learning curve. Read a good book on the topic such as Professional SharePoint 2007 Web Content Management Development: Building Publishing Sites with Office SharePoint Server 2007 by Andrew Connell. It takes you through most things you will encounter from the ground up.
I'm working my way through Real World Branding by Andrew Connell at the moment. It seems like a good demonstration, with code.
Plus the Heather Solomon articles as suggested by dahlbyk are always informative.
Just changing the theme, or creating a custom theme for the site, can go a long way towards making SharePoint look a lot better. It's also a lot less intensive then changing the master pages.
How to create a theme
How to deploy a theme
Example customization you can do with just CSS
Does the EULA allow you to disguise the fact that it's MS software?
Remember, you didn't buy the software, you're just paying for the privilege of using it.
This question already has answers here:
Developer Documentation: Sharepoint Document Management vs. ScrewTurn Wiki [closed]
(11 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Duplicate
Developer Documentation: Sharepoint Document Management vs. ScrewTurn Wiki
I have been tasked with picking a wiki tool for a development organization, comprised of several different development teams. Sharepoint is installed and upper management would prefer this to be used, but in the past it has only used when PMs are forced to use it. None of the developers will update it with content that needs to be shared. I developed in Sharepoint and I liked it, so I have nothing against it. But for this to work I need something I can get everyone using, so Sharepoint will not work.
Step one is to convince management why Sharepoint will not work. We need the typical wiki features:
WYSIWYG, Clean interface, Easy to use, Attach Files to pages, Support for groups of users, Open source, Hosted Locally. (Maybe others I am not considering now?)
Can anyone provide a list of objective reasons why Sharepoint is not the solution we can use to take our first step?
There are many such products out there so step 2 should be easier.
SharePoint is the exact opposite of a wiki: A wiki is lightweight, easy to use, obvious, quick, doesn't get in the way.
To elaborate: A wiki allows your to jot down an idea quickly and moving details to the next page. In SP, people start to create processes, editing rights, workflows.
Wikis are designed to not get in the way. SP is designed to prevent you from doing "something bad"; whatever that might be. Wikis are driven by the idea that brainstorming works in open space while SP is driven by FUD: Who can see this information? Can it be used against me? How can I prevent someone to see/edit something?
Note: This is not a critique of SP per se; it's just how it used in most organizations. If you look at the security settings and edit rights, you sometimes feel like the workers of the company must all have been inmates in some high-profile prison (or should be).
I have absolutely no sharepoint-foo at all, but the sharepoint setup by IT at my employer has a wiki that we can use for documentation. Wouldn't that be good enough? Works ok-ish in firefox on mac, so I'm a happy camper.
SharePoint is best when using many of it's features (eg DM, WCM, workflow, collaberation etc) - you get a lot of it's benefits from the synergy of using all these things together with a common interface.
In any one area though, it's far from the 'best of breed' application - so, if you want a product for a specific job (eg a wiki), SharePoint isn't the most fully-featured/easy-to-use/delete-as-applicable product to be using - there will be products that do that (single) job far better.
You could also try looking at this question to see others experiences with SharePoint wiki's
I have used MediaWiki, Instiki and Sharepoint. Sharepoint does not work correctly with firefox on purpose. Its wiki functionality is an after thought. All kinds of additional features nobody use. But it does appeal to managers.
Instiki can be up and running in less than a minute and MediaWiki has everything you could need. Sharepoint annoyed most people on our team so nobody wanted to use it which meant a lot of knowledge was lost.
Which version of SharePoint are you using WSS 3.0/MOSS 2007 includes both wiki and blog functionality.
Although the SharePoint wiki isn't as feature-rich as most, the fact is that if your developers would not update a SharePoint wiki, chances are that they would not update any other kind, either.
I recommend creating a SharePoint wiki, and then actually reading the starting page, where it gives the definition of wikiwiki. I recommend only using a wiki (of any kind) for documents that can be written quickly, so that developers can get back to developing as soon as possible. Let the structure and accuracy grow over time. Just get the facts into the wiki quickly.
Wikis offer workflows, Document management and more too. I would disagree with those who say you can't do this in a wiki. Check out Confluence by Atlassian