Re: [WebDNA] WebDNA 7
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 107562
interpreted = N
texte = Brian, I've been following this thread intently over the past few days and have been pleased to see the interaction and feedback. I feel compelled to say a few things at this point: Ken largely has it right; if we thought that the "ISP" customer base was large enough and would spend enough money to support the forward momentum of WSC we would certainly focus our efforts on giving that base what they want. In your case, you say, essentially, that you would like to continue to use WebDNA on your sites and due to years of existing code it would burdensome for you to switch to WebDNA 7, thus it is not a viable option for you. I am like you in that respect, though I presume that you manage far more sites than I do since I have largely gotten out of the "build/host websites for other people" business. I own an unlimited commerce edition of WebDNA 6.2 for linux installed on a VPS that I control where I have a handful of sites, mostly my own. I don't use sandboxes since I'm the only one who gets under the hood of the server and I use globals quite a bit -- in my case it's more as a security measure than a code-centralization one. Fact is, I won't be "upgrading" to WebDNA 7. I have no need for it at this time. That is not to say that I won't have a need in the future or that it's not useful; I probably will and it is. The kicker here of course is that I'm the "marketing guy" for WSC so I'm supposedly obligated to drink the kool-aid and set an example, but the fact of the matter is, I'm not our target market anymore, and that was a major eye-opener late last year and early this year when Chris and I were discussing the future of WebDNA and how to market it. So my point on this is that perhaps you don't need WebDNA 7 right now, and that's okay. I'm still using Adobe CS4 and as much as Adobe wants me to upgrade, I just don't need it right now. Don't feel compelled to "upgrade", I won't be. I keep putting the word "upgrade" in quotes because this new version of WebDNA, while it does fix some bugs from previous versions, it is more of a stripping-down and a simplifying of the product, as Chris has pointed out. It is for all intents and purposes a new direction, and one that is based on the future of WebDNA and the survival of WSC. It is our hope that this simplification allows WebDNA to reach a desperately-needed wider audience. That is not to say that we are leaving our current customer-base behind; we are not. We still stand by and support all versions of WebDNA. If WebDNA 7 proves to be successful and the resources are there then who's to say that WebDNA 8 won't include globals or whatever feature requests are demanded. So hang tight. Stick with your current version of WebDNA. I am. Wait and see what happens, that's what I'm going to do. Someone pointed out that there were maybe 20 people still using WebDNA, and I can confidently say that that is not the case, but the point is well-taken, and that is that WebDNA is not very popular these days. Agreed. It is our intention to change that buy simplifying the product into what is now WebDNA 7.0. But let's go ahead and use those "20" people as an example to help illustrate the reality at hand. Let's say, hypothetically that there are really only 20 people still using WebDNA. Let's reasonably assume then, that they are "ISP" customers, and that they by and large need WebDNA to stay the same in order for it to remain a viable "upgrade" for them, even if that "upgrade" is simply better support and/or documentation among other things. Okay, then I ask all 20 of them to each send WSC, say, $5,000 and we'll make it happen. "What?!" "Why would I do that?" "What's in it for me?" Exactly. Who in their right mind would do that? Nobody, that's who. Now let's say that instead of 20 customers, there were 200 or 2000 or 200000. Then the amount "needed" would of course be $500, $50 or $5, respectively. Bottom line, we need more customers, and that is where WebDNA 7. comes in. Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge a few things in an official capacity: I know that I have been pretty quiet for a "marketing guy", but that doesn't mean that I'm not still around and acting on behalf of WSC. Fact is, I submitted a marketing plan and budget to Chris at the beginning of this year and he submitted it to the WSC shareholders in April. All that is missing is funding. No funding, no marketing, unfortunately. There is no way around it. Even if I had the time or inclination to essentially donate my time to doing all of the various tasks that need to be done (hint: I don't) to bring WebDNA 7 to market, there are still the hard costs of advertising. Chris has been feverishly working to raise that capital all year and I am confident that he will come through, and in the meantime his efforts have been directed at tightening up the screws on the new product and testing testing testing. I apologize for the lengthy response, and Brian, this was not directed at you, per se, but your opinions echo much of what the important issues are for WSC at this time, so I used a response to you as an opportunity to address the group. I realize many of you will have questions as a result of this email and I'll do my best to respond to each of them -- briefly of course :) As always, long live WebDNA. -- -Dan Strong Chief Marketing Officer WebDNA Software Corporation http://www.webdna.us On 10/26/2011 11:02 AM, Brian Fries wrote: > Chris, I understand and agree with your direction with WebDNA to make > it more palatable to ISPs. However, I cannot move to WebDNA 7 for my > main web servers without many hours of work and testing. Your > statement "i really do not understand the fellows here who feel that > the world would stop without /global" is rather dismissive to those of > us who have been using the product for years and have developed a > system that (for good reasons) relies on globals. In my case, I have > two different physical web servers which host 20+ domains between > them. In both cases, most of the domains are virtual clones of the > same site with both shared code and shared databases. Maintaining 20 > copies of the code and separating the databases into 20 > domain-specific sets would be a lot of work and would lose > functionality such as single sign-on for multiple domains without > additional effort. So, if I build new systems under WebDNA, I will > keep the limitations of version 7 in mind, but I cannot afford the > effort of changing systems that have been in place for 10 or more > years. As such, those sites will not be receiving any of the benefits > of future WebDNA enhancements. Brian Fries BrainScan Software On Oct > 26, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Donovan Brooke wrote: >> christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote: [snip] >>> In conclusion, i do not think the 6.x /global directory can save >>> programming time (by building a standard and local /global), is not >>> really saving space neither (few hundred kB?), implies major >>> complexity for WebDNA and restrict customer's freedom. Since it is >>> very easy to move locally the /global directory and fix the >>> references to it with a single "search and replace" in few minutes >>> only, i really do not understand the fellows here who feel that the >>> world would stop without /global. - chris >> What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. ;-) Donovan -- >> Donovan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us > --------------------------------------------------------- This message > is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list >
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: > support@webdna.us
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Brian, I've been following this thread intently over the past few days and have been pleased to see the interaction and feedback. I feel compelled to say a few things at this point: Ken largely has it right; if we thought that the "ISP" customer base was large enough and would spend enough money to support the forward momentum of WSC we would certainly focus our efforts on giving that base what they want. In your case, you say, essentially, that you would like to continue to use WebDNA on your sites and due to years of existing code it would burdensome for you to switch to WebDNA 7, thus it is not a viable option for you. I am like you in that respect, though I presume that you manage far more sites than I do since I have largely gotten out of the "build/host websites for other people" business. I own an unlimited commerce edition of WebDNA 6.2 for linux installed on a VPS that I control where I have a handful of sites, mostly my own. I don't use sandboxes since I'm the only one who gets under the hood of the server and I use globals quite a bit -- in my case it's more as a security measure than a code-centralization one. Fact is, I won't be "upgrading" to WebDNA 7. I have no need for it at this time. That is not to say that I won't have a need in the future or that it's not useful; I probably will and it is. The kicker here of course is that I'm the "marketing guy" for WSC so I'm supposedly obligated to drink the kool-aid and set an example, but the fact of the matter is, I'm not our target market anymore, and that was a major eye-opener late last year and early this year when Chris and I were discussing the future of WebDNA and how to market it. So my point on this is that perhaps you don't need WebDNA 7 right now, and that's okay. I'm still using Adobe CS4 and as much as Adobe wants me to upgrade, I just don't need it right now. Don't feel compelled to "upgrade", I won't be. I keep putting the word "upgrade" in quotes because this new version of WebDNA, while it does fix some bugs from previous versions, it is more of a stripping-down and a simplifying of the product, as Chris has pointed out. It is for all intents and purposes a new direction, and one that is based on the future of WebDNA and the survival of WSC. It is our hope that this simplification allows WebDNA to reach a desperately-needed wider audience. That is not to say that we are leaving our current customer-base behind; we are not. We still stand by and support all versions of WebDNA. If WebDNA 7 proves to be successful and the resources are there then who's to say that WebDNA 8 won't include globals or whatever feature requests are demanded. So hang tight. Stick with your current version of WebDNA. I am. Wait and see what happens, that's what I'm going to do. Someone pointed out that there were maybe 20 people still using WebDNA, and I can confidently say that that is not the case, but the point is well-taken, and that is that WebDNA is not very popular these days. Agreed. It is our intention to change that buy simplifying the product into what is now WebDNA 7.0. But let's go ahead and use those "20" people as an example to help illustrate the reality at hand. Let's say, hypothetically that there are really only 20 people still using WebDNA. Let's reasonably assume then, that they are "ISP" customers, and that they by and large need WebDNA to stay the same in order for it to remain a viable "upgrade" for them, even if that "upgrade" is simply better support and/or documentation among other things. Okay, then I ask all 20 of them to each send WSC, say, $5,000 and we'll make it happen. "What?!" "Why would I do that?" "What's in it for me?" Exactly. Who in their right mind would do that? Nobody, that's who. Now let's say that instead of 20 customers, there were 200 or 2000 or 200000. Then the amount "needed" would of course be $500, $50 or $5, respectively. Bottom line, we need more customers, and that is where WebDNA 7. comes in. Lastly, I'd like to acknowledge a few things in an official capacity: I know that I have been pretty quiet for a "marketing guy", but that doesn't mean that I'm not still around and acting on behalf of WSC. Fact is, I submitted a marketing plan and budget to Chris at the beginning of this year and he submitted it to the WSC shareholders in April. All that is missing is funding. No funding, no marketing, unfortunately. There is no way around it. Even if I had the time or inclination to essentially donate my time to doing all of the various tasks that need to be done (hint: I don't) to bring WebDNA 7 to market, there are still the hard costs of advertising. Chris has been feverishly working to raise that capital all year and I am confident that he will come through, and in the meantime his efforts have been directed at tightening up the screws on the new product and testing testing testing. I apologize for the lengthy response, and Brian, this was not directed at you, per se, but your opinions echo much of what the important issues are for WSC at this time, so I used a response to you as an opportunity to address the group. I realize many of you will have questions as a result of this email and I'll do my best to respond to each of them -- briefly of course :) As always, long live WebDNA. -- -Dan Strong Chief Marketing Officer WebDNA Software Corporation http://www.webdna.us On 10/26/2011 11:02 AM, Brian Fries wrote: > Chris, I understand and agree with your direction with WebDNA to make > it more palatable to ISPs. However, I cannot move to WebDNA 7 for my > main web servers without many hours of work and testing. Your > statement "i really do not understand the fellows here who feel that > the world would stop without /global" is rather dismissive to those of > us who have been using the product for years and have developed a > system that (for good reasons) relies on globals. In my case, I have > two different physical web servers which host 20+ domains between > them. In both cases, most of the domains are virtual clones of the > same site with both shared code and shared databases. Maintaining 20 > copies of the code and separating the databases into 20 > domain-specific sets would be a lot of work and would lose > functionality such as single sign-on for multiple domains without > additional effort. So, if I build new systems under WebDNA, I will > keep the limitations of version 7 in mind, but I cannot afford the > effort of changing systems that have been in place for 10 or more > years. As such, those sites will not be receiving any of the benefits > of future WebDNA enhancements. Brian Fries BrainScan Software On Oct > 26, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Donovan Brooke wrote: >> christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote: [snip] >>> In conclusion, i do not think the 6.x /global directory can save >>> programming time (by building a standard and local /global), is not >>> really saving space neither (few hundred kB?), implies major >>> complexity for WebDNA and restrict customer's freedom. Since it is >>> very easy to move locally the /global directory and fix the >>> references to it with a single "search and replace" in few minutes >>> only, i really do not understand the fellows here who feel that the >>> world would stop without /global. - chris >> What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. ;-) Donovan -- >> Donovan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us > --------------------------------------------------------- This message > is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list > . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us Bug Reporting: > support@webdna.us
Dan Strong
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Security for malls with different webmasters (1998)
[Sum] function? (1997)
[WebDNA] Clarifying talklist emails (2020)
Variable prices and Formulas.db (1997)
cart ID (1998)
[SEARCH] Context for SKU prices not working... (1998)
[OT] Mom's gift (2006)
Any way to retrieve information from clipboard? (1999)
Triggers and today's leap day? (2000)
off topic