 |
|
|
|
cathal connolly wrote
Oliver Hine wrote
I started my post with "If this is true, than" ... "I'm sorry to see the community edition die a slowly death", the reason i put the "if" in there, was this roadmap isn't fact. It's only rumor because we don't have an official roadmap yet.
|
As tom's email stated (and Joe has posted on a number of threads), the roadmap is coming soon. I would expect the roadmap would have more detail than the few bullet points in tom's mail.
It's great to see when your product is a web based CMS, early versions of the roadmap to get leaked. Why not just edit the page and paste those bits or the more detailed version to avoid threads like this?
cathal connolly wrote
| Oliver Hine wrote
I personally think at this early stage in the professional edition's life, the corporation with all their new venture capital funding would be actively working on stabilizing the core and subprojects including the infrastructure used to gather feedback from the community (gemini and the forums). Instead they'd rather complicate the development process by adding more modules / features into the mix, they're already struggling with the 5.0 fiasco and the 3.5 migration bugs so much they're thinking about dropping 2.x support in 5.1.
|
This is exactly what's happening in the core. When 5.1 comes out , the PE version (which once again is just the CE version with a few changes/extensions/modules overlaid over it), will have to be rock-solid as the Corp provides support (to quote http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Products/ProfessionalEdition/FAQ/tabid/1252/Default.aspx "Guaranteed product issue resolution through premium support channels, enhanced resources and immediate attention from experts most familiar with the framework"). If the core is not in a good state the Corp will have to do huge amounts of support, effectively killing their business model. This is just common-sense to me - in fact just as many people don't choose to go with major jumps such as 5.0, but wait for the next iteration (5.01./5.0.2) as historically speaking they're more solid releases, I expect in time some people will only choose to upgrade to CE versions that a PE version exists for, as it will again be a more effective guarantee of a quality release (obviously security upgrades live outside this scenario)
I'm not here to argue the PE vs CE support structure. I'm hear talk about the CE support structure. Every single tool the corporation exposes for the community edition is filled with bugs and on the edge of being unusable. It seems clear that they'd rather us to pay for the PE version to get the professional set of tools rather than fix what they have exposed for the public.
cathal connolly wrote
| Oliver Hine wrote
A fork is the last thing I want to see, but if the community keeps getting ignored what else do we have to do? I hate to see features like advanced content approval, advanced control panel to make your life easier, integrated google analytics (which was in a patch i submitted recently), more granular permissions, etc. added into the professional edition, while the community get yelled at for not testing the 5.0 release enough.
|
I don't think the community ever get's yelled at for not testing 5.0 enough, however it's a simple fact that even after a lot of beta releases and ever increasing audiences of testers, 5.0 was not where we wanted to be quality wise. This is just a statement of fact, not an accusation. Either not enough people tested it, or people tested "happy-path" scenarios, or only a small part of the application. This is a key reason why additional resources that can perform testing are a valuable boost to all dnn users.
If you think "a lot of betas" is the same as the one public beta, and a bunch of private paid only beta test groups, that would probably explain where most of the problems with the overall quality of the product are stemming from. Maybe if the entire development and beta structure was completely transparent (public) in regards to the community edition, this wouldn't happen.
Anyways, just some more thoughts...
|
| |
|
|
 | |
|
|
 |
 |
www.cathal.co.uk
Joined: 4/9/2003
Posts: 9676
|
|
|
Oliver Hine wrote
It's great to see when your product is a web based CMS, early versions of the roadmap to get leaked. Why not just edit the page and paste those bits or the more detailed version to avoid threads like this?
The full roadmap and it's details aren't ready yet - it'll be published when it is.
Oliver Hine wrote
I'm not here to argue the PE vs CE support structure. I'm hear talk about the CE support structure. Every single tool the corporation exposes for the community edition is filled with bugs and on the edge of being unusable. It seems clear that they'd rather us to pay for the PE version to get the professional set of tools rather than fix what they have exposed for the public.
You're completely incorrect here- the corp/core use the same tools for the same purposes as they always did i.e. gemini, forums and SCM. Naturally it would be preferable if these worked better, which of course takes time and money. I'm confused as to how you complain about things that require revenue to fix, but then complain about any revenue generating opportunities.
Of course there are additional tools so that PE customers can raise a support issue, get a ticket and have it answered within an SLA period - this a value add service that they pay for. They also have access to additional KB's etc., all of which have been generated by employees of the dotnetnuke corporation.
Oliver Hine wrote
If you think "a lot of betas" is the same as the one public beta, and a bunch of private paid only beta test groups, that would probably explain where most of the problems with the overall quality of the product are stemming from. Maybe if the entire development and beta structure was completely transparent (public) in regards to the community edition, this wouldn't happen.
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this isn't correct again. There were actually 7 beta packages. These initially were used for internal testing (core/project/qa), then the group was expanded to to include the sponsors (couple of hundred others), then expanding to include attendees at openforce europe and US. After that there were 2 release candidates publically available.
It's been a long term desire to open up the code via a public repository, and I believe this will happen at some point, but once again, this takes time and money.
Cathal
Buy the new Professional DNN7: Open Source .NET CMS Platform book
Amazon US
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
www.olsmar.com/
Joined: 9/19/2005
Posts: 1354
|
|
|
The RC candidates was released to the Openforce events, not after.
But I asume you classify the 5.00 and 5.0.1 as rrelease candidates as well 
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cathal connolly wrote
| Oliver Hine wrote
I'm not here to argue the PE vs CE support structure. I'm hear talk about the CE support structure. Every single tool the corporation exposes for the community edition is filled with bugs and on the edge of being unusable. It seems clear that they'd rather us to pay for the PE version to get the professional set of tools rather than fix what they have exposed for the public.
|
You're completely incorrect here- the corp/core use the same tools for the same purposes as they always did i.e. gemini, forums and SCM. Naturally it would be preferable if these worked better, which of course takes time and money. I'm confused as to how you complain about things that require revenue to fix, but then complain about any revenue generating opportunities.
I don't understand how you think I'm completely incorrect. However, I'll just continue... I think if the draft of the roadmap is anywhere near accurate than we've got more problems coming in the future. I cannot understand how anyone can stand to use gemini for anything (besides dropping the database out the window), the forums are mostly usuable but only if you're a seasoned vet. Clearly they have development resources if content approval / workflow is going to be included in the next point release, but they clearly don't care enough about their community members if they're confident with the current state of gemini and the forums to just ignore it for the future.
cathal connolly wrote
| Oliver Hine wrote
If you think "a lot of betas" is the same as the one public beta, and a bunch of private paid only beta test groups, that would probably explain where most of the problems with the overall quality of the product are stemming from. Maybe if the entire development and beta structure was completely transparent (public) in regards to the community edition, this wouldn't happen.
|
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but this isn't correct again. There were actually 7 beta packages. These initially were used for internal testing (core/project/qa), then the group was expanded to to include the sponsors (couple of hundred others), then expanding to include attendees at openforce europe and US. After that there were 2 release candidates publically available.
7 beta packages that were released to hand picked group of individuals that should know the core api's inside and out and be able to catch and fix any major issues. Then it was expanded to include people that paid to sponsor DNN, than it was expanded to include people that paid to attend the dnn tradeshow, then finally we had 1 or 2 public releases but we the community users get yelled at for not utilizing gemini to it's full busted potential.
cathal connolly wrote
It's been a long term desire to open up the code via a public repository, and I believe this will happen at some point, but once again, this takes time and money.
I can see how it takes time, but it doesn't really take any money and can only save additional funds.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joined: 6/2/2004
Posts: 169
|
|
|
Well... My hopes for the CE and PE split was to get the possibility to get priority support if I needed it, and if I didn't need it I could just go with the CE version, but if they are going to be big differences in the software I really don't know what to do. Most people I do work for, whom I have recommended DNN for are small businesses and organisations with limited funding where I manage the support for the DNN. Buying PE would in many cases break their IT budgets, it is no option. They are aware of the fact that they can not get immediate response to some of their problems, but they are willing to take that considering the cost for the site.
If I was running a webhotel with several portals and clients it could be different, then perhaps I would purchase a PE license when the income was big enough to cover it , but since one of my business ideas is to deliver as cheap as possible solutions that makes my clients so independent as possible from me as supplier, with their own installations on the serviceprovider of their choice (i.e. Surftown and similar which costs less than $100/yr for a windowsbased website here in Sweden ) the P.E. license would more then double the investment for my clients. If I had a large corporation as client, then it would be relevant with a PE license, especially someone that requires "of-the-shelf" software. ( I did actually loose a business opportunity for a large client because of DNN not being "o-t-s", and it is still rather unknown here in Sweden ).
/Jari
|
| |
|
|
| |