 |
|
|
|
Joined: 12/15/2008
Posts: 838
|
|
|
iwonder wrote
Well, being an early adopter of this framework, I'm really confused as to why DNN is being compared to Content Management Systems. I don't remember anyone advertising DNN as a CMS, it's an application framework. CMS solutions should have workflow built-in, of course DNN doesn't so that one point would be vexing to anyone expecting DNN to work as a CMS. I suspect that's why the banner on the DNN Home page has in big bold print the following:
DotNetNuke® is the most widely adopted open source framework for web content management (WCM) and building web applications on Microsoft ASP.NET
A Web Content Management system is not the same as a CMS. If you examine the framework, it offers a lot of flexibility, and scales from small users to larger users needs. Yes, there are issues, but I've been in the software / IT world since key punch machines were used, and I can tell you nothing I've ever come to use in the many varities of systems works completely devoid of issues. That's why folks in IT are still needed.
The fact that DNN has modules which you are free to modify to include whatever is missing is something that is a positive, not a negative. The thrust of the Core modules have always been to provide basic functionality, which allows other developers to build upon. While my approach has always been to use the Core modules rather than 3rd party modules is by choice - I'm cheap that way. The existence of enhanced 3rd party modules underscores the proven strategy that allows DNN to continue to be a leader in its' niche. Now, if you are a really enterprising developer or have money to do it, you could transform the existing DNN into a CMS, adding the missing bits, and that says something about the flexibility of the framework. Add the fact that DNN is freely available, and the license allows it to be modified, and all the other features, makes it valuable. The adoption of the DNN framework globally suggests that folks around the world value it.
I personally, don't care what is used by anyone, or what a client wants. I deliver the goods in the fashion that the client needs. Of course, I offer my opinion and advice but in the end, it's the client that matters - they pay the bills. As a consultant, user, developer, or agent, the choice is yours to make based on your circumstance.
I think most people think of a CMS as a system where different kinds of content can be added and edited by authorized users without having technical knowledge. So in this basic definition, DNN can be considered a CMS. http://www.cmswatch.com/CMS/Vendors/DotNetNuke/
For many, a Web Content Management system probably just means a web based CMS and do not know the difference and do not care. While DNN uses modules, it can just mean a CMS with a plugin architecture, like Joomla.
DNN (ISpy) was created for users, not developers. Personally I don't like the "Application Framework" association for DNN. It suggest DNN is for developers.
.NET is an application framework. I don't consider DNN one. For the millions of Facebook users, it's a website with lots of functionality. While developers can develop app which work inside Facebook, I can't say Facebook is an Application Framework. DNN falls in the same category. Others might disagree with my opinion.
|
| |
|
|
 | |
|
|
 |
 |
www.nevoweb.com
Joined: 3/29/2005
Posts: 446
|
|
|
Sorry to disagree, but in my opinion DNN is a framework that has CMS (or WCM if you prefer) included. In my mind a framework is something that puts down the building blocks and allows you to expand it into any software functionality you like. DNN does this!!, I don't know about facebook? But I can take a DNN framework, develope the extra functionaity I need and package it. Once it's installed you'd never know it was DNN, it can just look like any other .net website.
However to get back on subject. It's true that if you make something look good, people believe it must work better! If DNN is to stay in the race it must try to get easier functionaity to the non-developer community, this will then naturally be picked up and used by the developer community.
(my 1 and a half cents worth!!)
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
wizzodawg.blogspot.com/
Joined: 2/9/2007
Posts: 628
|
|
|
I think most people think of a CMS as a system where different kinds of content can be added and edited by authorized users without having technical knowledge. So in this basic definition, DNN can be considered a CMS.
A true CMS has workflow, and revision control, allowing authorized editors of content to track and approve content, before it is published, among other features. DNN does not have those features and never claimed to offer it. The basic definition you offer is exactly why there is confusion. DNN does require some technical knowledge to install and maintain. Also, I would argue that adding content to a CMS or WCM does require technical knowledge, if only understanding HTML or text editing features.
For many, a Web Content Management system probably just means a web based CMS and do not know the difference and do not care. While DNN uses modules, it can just mean a CMS with a plugin architecture, like Joomla.
Most don't care? Well, they should, otherwise they will marching towards the wrong goal. Another reason, why IT consultants are used to help bridge the gap in knowledge. If someone makes a decision to go forward with a any system without reviewing it's list of features, and shortcomings, their business strategy will be in trouble. You have to care about technical distinctions to achieve success.
DNN (ISpy) was created for users, not developers. Personally I don't like the "Application Framework" association for DNN. It suggest DNN is for developers.
The first gen DNN (ISpy) was aimed at developers, because ASP.NET was new development technology. DNN has evolved over the years, and added more features along the way. Whether the tag 'Application Framework' denotes a target audience or not, the fact of the matter is DNN still requires technical, artistic (graphics), and creative talent, as well as, developers to enhance the Core modules to be used effectively. In fact that's probably true of any Web project, whether it is a WCM or CMS.
A client organization bought what was advertised as a CMS, but turned out to be just a WCM system. Of course, as their project progressed, they ran into difficulties, and that's where I was brought in. They expected approval and revision control features, but those features were not part of the chosen app. I showed them DNN. They had spent over $5000 on the 'CMS' system, in addition to paying for setup, hosting, and administration. All of this they did without talking to their own IT department. I pulled a meeting together comprised of their decision makers, graphic arts department and IT staff. After a demo of DNN and discussing the pros and cons, they decided to dismiss the CMS system, and I helped them install DNN, showing them how to install, and maintain it. Their IT staff was very knowledgeable, and added the needed workflow, and revision features to the modules they felt needed it, and were happy with the new DNN website, which they were able to host on their own servers.
So, whatever you choose to call DNN and how you define it is important, unless you really don't care about the success of your project or clients.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
Joined: 6/3/2005
Posts: 2799
|
|
|
Salama wrote
A trend I am noticing is whenever I read an article about CMS's, DNN doesn't seem to get high marks.
This isn't a trend, it's a reality. In many cases, the choices are made based on things unrelated to DNN, such as it being Windows dependent (No ASP.NET solution rates high in most cases...). In other cases it gets knocked for not having something built in that's easily and cheaply available third party. I often see comparisons to Joomla, Drupal, etc. where the comment is that the PHP/Python/MySQL version has so much more available. Yet these are all really third party modules as well.
The there's the bottom line that DNN is old in the tooth. Essentially unchanged for nearly a decade. Oh yeah, upgrades have happened, more functionality is available and so on, but DNN 5.0 is quite visibly an extension of the IBuySpy application. Not much prettier, just as confusing and unintuitive for users and just as convoluted for devlopers as always.
Jeff
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I see very often in the forums and in my professional life that there are a ton of issues that simply revolve around perspective. For example, User 1 will expect a CMS to X Y Z, while User 2 will expect a CMS to do A B C. And several of the problems or topics in this thread can be partially addressed as a perspective issue. How you talk about or describe something is sometimes more important than what it actually does, as the person(s) you're talking to probably view the terminology differently than you do. That being said, I was happy to see someone mention that DNN is not a CMS. That is 100% true.
DNN can indeed function as a CMS, but you have to put in the functionality, modules, providers, and workflow to make it do so. It can also be a simple blog site. It can be a complicated Intranet collaboration site. It can be a full-fleged e-commerce site. You can even build a multi-media website. There are many others that we could list here. However, if you look at the business requirements and feature requirements for each type of website that DNN can be, not many could be defined as a CMS. DNN is indeed a framework. It is the box of Legos that you use to build your site as you see fit. It that site ends up being a CMS, that's wonderful (as long as that's what you intended).
As far as rankings go, it is no secret that DNN has many issues and problems it needs to shore up. That will always be true of any application. Unfortunately, someone else also hit a very good point. DNN is very often overlooked, discounted, or shunned altogether in many ratings simply due to either it's Microsoft/Windows affiliation, or due to the way that the DNN project is organized.
I also wanted to hit on another point made early in this thread. I also viewed Alex's post as being a bit more forceful than it could have been. But that brings up 2 very good points.
First, I understand his frustration, as recently the forums have been riddled with complaints, and very few of those complaining are offering to help the project. While I do not know Alex personally, I can easily see that he is probably just being short due to this overwhelming flood of complaints. Does that validate the comment? No. But a little bit of understanding can go a long way for all of us.
Second, we all are very well aware that the current versions of DNN have many short comings, numerous bugs, and major usability issues. However, the project is having less and less people contributing code, bugs, or enhancements to Gemini. Instead, I am seeing nothing but criticisms. If you think about this from the point of view of your own projects, this can easily be seen as nothing but negativity. I know someone will chime in and say that they do not feel or think that they cannot submit code to the project. That is simply not true. You can submit a code update in Gemini. It will not always be used, but it will be reviewed.
|
| |
|
|
| |