Products

Solutions

Resources

Partners

Community

Blog

About

QA

Ideas Test

New Community Website

Ordinarily, you'd be at the right spot, but we've recently launched a brand new community website... For the community, by the community.

Yay... Take Me to the Community!

Welcome to the DNN Community Forums, your preferred source of online community support for all things related to DNN.
In order to participate you must be a registered DNNizen

HomeHomeOur CommunityOur CommunityGeneral Discuss...General Discuss...Very sad, what is happening in here... :(Very sad, what is happening in here... :(
Previous
 
Next
New Post
2/5/2014 12:27 AM
 
Tony Henrich wrote:
..... I think the corp needs to make the download link and forums more visible on the home page. wordpress.org is an example. they have two big download buttons above the fold. people quickly sense that it's a free offering.

 

I agree 100%.  Yes, you can finally get to the forums from the Community tab as of last week (we have been asking for that since last July) but the home page only welcomes those who want to buy Evoq.   People looking for a free CMS will not easily find that here.

After seven months of asking... I think it's time to give up and move on and that is exactly what a lot of people are doing.  I don't think DNN Corp. having Evoq take priority is the problem and we really don't have a say in that anyway.  But it would have been better for everyone if they launched a new community site along with it.

And yes... post to an empty forum.... it won't be empty for very long.  Actually... there are a few sites up now that have forums already starting to fill.  DNN started on a single post on the ASP.Net forums...progressed to it's own forum group and then it's own site.

There are a lot of extremely talented people in the DNN community that surprise me day after day.  I have no doubt a new community site will be successful quickly as long as we all do it together.



Professional DNN Extensions, custom solutions and mobile apps since 2003.
www.OnyakTech.com
 
New Post
2/5/2014 2:08 AM
 
Tony Henrich wrote:
Wes Tatters wrote:

The Source package works correctly - If you use it the way it is intended 

Did you continue from there? The problem is not with the build. 


Yes - of course i did - created a password and selected the default database settings - couple of minutes later - running test site.

I would maybe start by winding back to prerequisites and checking that you have latest MS SQL and latest IIS and ASP.NET - DNN 7.x has different minimum server requirements to older versions.  Its possible that one of the prerequisites is not being met.

 

 

 
New Post
2/5/2014 3:07 AM
 
Wes Tatters wrote:
Tony Henrich wrote:
Wes Tatters wrote:

The Source package works correctly - If you use it the way it is intended 

Did you continue from there? The problem is not with the build. 


Yes - of course i did - created a password and selected the default database settings - couple of minutes later - running test site.

I would maybe start by winding back to prerequisites and checking that you have latest MS SQL and latest IIS and ASP.NET - DNN 7.x has different minimum server requirements to older versions.  Its possible that one of the prerequisites is not being met. 

 

 

 

I have the latest of everything. SQL Server 2012, Windows 8.1 (meaning latest IIS too) and latest .NET, 4.5.1, but it should work fine with 4.0. For now I used the install package and it works fine. So I am not going to worry about the source package anymore. I might try it again when the next version comes out.  I have installed tens of ASP.NET open source apps and they all work just fine. None was a pain like DNN.

 
New Post
2/5/2014 3:29 AM
 
Chris Onyak wrote:

I'll help launch anyone who wants to startup a new DNN Open Source community site as long as the focus and priority is always open source DNN.  Tell me where it is and I'll go.

A new DNN Extensions Store? I'll try it and support it but that won't be an easy feat.  Many people have tried to launch their own store including DNN and they all failed.  Brice won that battle by having the first-mover advantage.  With the DNN Store embedded into DNN itself your chances of success are even lower.  However, anyone can bring down a giant with the right tools.  It would definitely be valuable to everyone if there was some competition.  Some of the rules in the DNN Store are a bit harsh on vendors.

Instead of Forking DNN why not improve the core design a bit to make it more extensible and allow the community to build deeper providers?

Problem #1:  The problem I hear the most from DNN haters is that the install is too complicated and error prone.  Another related complaint is that they want some of the new features but not all of them.

Solution for #1:  Refactor the core to use a provider pattern for the installer.  Let people build custom installers so that DNN Corp. doesn't have to, then they can focus on Evoq while the community builds custom installers that allow you to choose the features you want. Remove or replace the embedded store, change or remove the upgrade notice,  use a custom PageBase Provider or at least allow us to replace the exception handling in BasePortalExceoptions, ModuleLoadExceptions, PageLoadExceptions, SearchExceptions, SecurityExceptions, etc.  I would love to build an Exception Provider for DNN for StreamInsight.

Problem #2:  DNN is too complicated to skin for creative UI designers.

Solution for #2:  Move the skin class or parts of it out and create a provider pattern so that the Skin loads from an extension instead. Then we can build Skin Rendering Providers. Examples of uses would be to create Skin Providers that can take a skins for any other CMS (Joomla, WordPress, etc) and have it render in DNN without changing the markup allowing web designers to build DNN skins without having to learn a new skill.

Problem #3: Branding and other countless other issues people have posted in this thread and elsewhere on the web.

Solution for #3: Refactor out the problem area and make it extensible.  Make the embedded store extensible so that other stores can start-up and offer their own version of DNN with their store in the sites. The core should always be solid and the problem components should be replaceable.

Build a solid core and then build extensions for all areas of it.  If the core is unreliable then the extensions are worthless.  If we always have to modify the core to get what we need then the core is handling too much.   A Fork is necessary but do you really want to break apart DNN and everyone working on it?  I think it would better to improve the design of the core by moving key functionality out of it and using a provider pattern.

It would also allow DNN Corp. to focus on making Evoq more valuable for their target market without the community frustrated because it no longer fits their needs or is causing issues for them.

Then... build a few community open source DNN sites and a few other DNN Extension stores and now you have yourself the ultimate next generation global technological solution.  Get Microsoft involved and have them fund the new stores and community sites in return for focused advertising of Windows 8 apps for DNN, Azure or even more Azure extensions.

 

If you make it reliable, it's open source, with a powerful instantly accessible and highly active community and while also extremely extensible so that you could throw a wrapper around all other competing CMS code....why would anyone use anything but DNN!?!?

 

 

The corp will do something if it fits their agenda and business model or if someone does the work and hands it to them. They converted to C# only when a volunteer started and did most of the work. I think if someone doesn't like something, they can implement a working solution to them. 

As for the store, I don't know if skin and extension vendors are unhappy with it. It works fine for consumers. As a consumer, I prefer to go to one place for all my DNN needs, just like Apple's or Google's app store. However I do think if skins and modules are sold in other markets like Themeforest and CodeCanyon, DNN gets more exposure and more people would use it. 

 

 

 
New Post
2/5/2014 3:37 AM
 
I would definitely be willing to modify the core to include a few more areas for adapters by myself and submit.  But I'm interested to hear what others think about that.  If the chances of it being accepted are low then I will just build a wrapper around the core that modifies the assembly as needed while running.


Professional DNN Extensions, custom solutions and mobile apps since 2003.
www.OnyakTech.com
 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeOur CommunityOur CommunityGeneral Discuss...General Discuss...Very sad, what is happening in here... :(Very sad, what is happening in here... :(


These Forums are dedicated to discussion of DNN Platform and Evoq Solutions.

For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines:

  1. No Advertising. This includes promotion of commercial and non-commercial products or services which are not directly related to DNN.
  2. No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or other customers to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
  3. Discussion or promotion of DNN Platform product releases under a different brand name are strictly prohibited.
  4. No Flaming or Trolling.
  5. No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
  6. Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.
  7. English language posting only, please.
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out