Re: [WebDNA] WebDNA 7
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 107564
interpreted = N
texte = My vote is for Liger. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger On 10/26/11 3:34 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > So here's the bottom line: > > For those of you who need a globals folder, and for others > such as those who have built eCommerce systems on top of v6 > and earlier, there is no reason to switch to v7. > > None whatsoever. > > So just continue using v6 successfully like you've done for > how many years (?) and give WSC a chance to do what they > intend to do with v7 -- without pressuring them to change it > just because you want a feature it does not offer. > > By the way, in my opinion v7 should have been given a brand > new name and a new 1.0 version number to go along with it. > Then you all might not consider it to be an "upgrade" ... > since it is really not an upgrade at all. > > So who's with me in having a contest to give v7 a brand new > name? I hereby cast my vote for "Wombat"! > > :) > > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome > > > >> 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 >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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:
My vote is for Liger. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger On 10/26/11 3:34 PM, Kenneth Grome wrote: > So here's the bottom line: > > For those of you who need a globals folder, and for others > such as those who have built eCommerce systems on top of v6 > and earlier, there is no reason to switch to v7. > > None whatsoever. > > So just continue using v6 successfully like you've done for > how many years (?) and give WSC a chance to do what they > intend to do with v7 -- without pressuring them to change it > just because you want a feature it does not offer. > > By the way, in my opinion v7 should have been given a brand > new name and a new 1.0 version number to go along with it. > Then you all might not consider it to be an "upgrade" ... > since it is really not an upgrade at all. > > So who's with me in having a contest to give v7 a brand new > name? I hereby cast my vote for "Wombat"! > > :) > > Sincerely, > Kenneth Grome > > > >> 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 >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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 >
Adam OConnor
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:
shipping confusion (2000)
bug in [SendMail] (1997)
Duplicate Cart Problem in Netscape (2000)
'page impression' techniques for banner ads (1999)
[ShowNext] feature in 2.0 (1997)
Multiply prices (1997)
Unknown error: OrderNotCreated (1997)
Press Release hit the NewsWire!!! (1997)
[WebDNA] UTF-8 encoding issues (2010)
How do I write this search? (2006)
One more try (1997)
WebCat2b13 Mac plugin - [sendmail] and checkboxes (1997)
Help with update to 2.11 (1998)
Misc Stuff That Might Help (1997)
Sku numbers (1997)
A Global Variable (1997)
before after on (1998)
Opinion: [input] should be called [output] ... (1997)
dos performance (1998)
Kill the webcat process (2000)