Re: [WebDNA] WebDNA 7
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 107572
interpreted = N
texte = But would you? Really? At the current pricing of $69 for first license=20 and $29 for each thereafter within 30 days, that's $2940. Don't get me=20 wrong, I'm sure you can afford it -- I'm not implying otherwise. I just=20 don't think that there enough current customers like you willing to do=20 the same. Am I wrong? --=20 -Dan Strong Chief Marketing Officer WebDNA Software Corporation http://www.webdna.us On 10/26/2011 4:03 PM, Stuart Tremain wrote: > Dan > > I fully agree to follow the money. > > But consider this: I have 100+ domains running on WebDNA that will stay= on 6.x because they need a globals directory. > > If v7 had access to a globals directory I would then have the option of= paying 100 upgrade fees. > > Regards > > Stuart Tremain > IDFK Web Developments > AUSTRALIA > webdna@idfk.com.au > > > > > On 27/10/2011, at 6:12 AM, Dan Strong wrote: > >> Brian, >> >> I've been following this thread intently over the past few days and ha= ve 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 w= as large enough and would spend enough money to support the forward momen= tum 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 con= tinue to use WebDNA on your sites and due to years of existing code it wo= uld burdensome for you to switch to WebDNA 7, thus it is not a viable opt= ion for you. I am like you in that respect, though I presume that you man= age far more sites than I do since I have largely gotten out of the "buil= d/host websites for other people" business. I own an unlimited commerce e= dition 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 t= he 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-centrali= zation 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 t= hat 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 d= rink 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 W= ebDNA 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 "upg= rade", I won't be. I keep putting the word "upgrade" in quotes because th= is new version of WebDNA, while it does fix some bugs from previous versi= ons, 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 desperat= ely-needed wider audience. That is not to say that we are leaving our cur= rent 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 w= ho's to say that WebDNA 8 won't include globals or whatever feature reque= sts are demanded. So hang tight. Stick with your current version of WebDN= A. 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 w= ell-taken, and that is that WebDNA is not very popular these days. Agreed= =2E It is our intention to change that buy simplifying the product into w= hat 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, hypotheticall= y that there are really only 20 people still using WebDNA. Let's reasonab= ly 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 docume= ntation 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 wer= e 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 does= n'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 m= issing is funding. No funding, no marketing, unfortunately. There is no w= ay 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 adv= ertising. Chris has been feverishly working to raise that capital all yea= r and I am confident that he will come through, and in the meantime his e= fforts 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 resu= lt of this email and I'll do my best to respond to each of them -- briefl= y 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 mai= n web servers without many hours of work and testing. Your statement "i r= eally do not understand the fellows here who feel that the world would st= op without /global" is rather dismissive to those of us who have been usi= ng the product for years and have developed a system that (for good reaso= ns) relies on globals. In my case, I have two different physical web serv= ers which host 20+ domains between them. In both cases, most of the domai= ns are virtual clones of the same site with both shared code and shared d= atabases. Maintaining 20 copies of the code and separating the databases = into 20 domain-specific sets would be a lot of work and would lose functi= onality such as single sign-on for multiple domains without additional ef= fort. So, if I build new systems under WebDNA, I will keep the limitation= s of version 7 in mind, but I cannot afford the effort of changing system= s 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. Bria= n Fries BrainScan Software On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Donovan Brooke wr= ote: >>>> christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote: [snip] >>>>> In conclusion, i do not think the 6.x /global directory can save pr= ogramming time (by building a standard and local /global), is not really = saving space neither (few hundred kB?), implies major complexity for WebD= NA 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 -- Do= novan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us >>> --------------------------------------------------------- This messag= e 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:
But would you? Really? At the current pricing of $69 for first license=20 and $29 for each thereafter within 30 days, that's $2940. Don't get me=20 wrong, I'm sure you can afford it -- I'm not implying otherwise. I just=20 don't think that there enough current customers like you willing to do=20 the same. Am I wrong? --=20 -Dan Strong Chief Marketing Officer WebDNA Software Corporation http://www.webdna.us On 10/26/2011 4:03 PM, Stuart Tremain wrote: > Dan > > I fully agree to follow the money. > > But consider this: I have 100+ domains running on WebDNA that will stay= on 6.x because they need a globals directory. > > If v7 had access to a globals directory I would then have the option of= paying 100 upgrade fees. > > Regards > > Stuart Tremain > IDFK Web Developments > AUSTRALIA > webdna@idfk.com.au > > > > > On 27/10/2011, at 6:12 AM, Dan Strong wrote: > >> Brian, >> >> I've been following this thread intently over the past few days and ha= ve 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 w= as large enough and would spend enough money to support the forward momen= tum 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 con= tinue to use WebDNA on your sites and due to years of existing code it wo= uld burdensome for you to switch to WebDNA 7, thus it is not a viable opt= ion for you. I am like you in that respect, though I presume that you man= age far more sites than I do since I have largely gotten out of the "buil= d/host websites for other people" business. I own an unlimited commerce e= dition 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 t= he 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-centrali= zation 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 t= hat 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 d= rink 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 W= ebDNA 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 "upg= rade", I won't be. I keep putting the word "upgrade" in quotes because th= is new version of WebDNA, while it does fix some bugs from previous versi= ons, 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 desperat= ely-needed wider audience. That is not to say that we are leaving our cur= rent 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 w= ho's to say that WebDNA 8 won't include globals or whatever feature reque= sts are demanded. So hang tight. Stick with your current version of WebDN= A. 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 w= ell-taken, and that is that WebDNA is not very popular these days. Agreed= =2E It is our intention to change that buy simplifying the product into w= hat 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, hypotheticall= y that there are really only 20 people still using WebDNA. Let's reasonab= ly 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 docume= ntation 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 wer= e 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 does= n'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 m= issing is funding. No funding, no marketing, unfortunately. There is no w= ay 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 adv= ertising. Chris has been feverishly working to raise that capital all yea= r and I am confident that he will come through, and in the meantime his e= fforts 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 resu= lt of this email and I'll do my best to respond to each of them -- briefl= y 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 mai= n web servers without many hours of work and testing. Your statement "i r= eally do not understand the fellows here who feel that the world would st= op without /global" is rather dismissive to those of us who have been usi= ng the product for years and have developed a system that (for good reaso= ns) relies on globals. In my case, I have two different physical web serv= ers which host 20+ domains between them. In both cases, most of the domai= ns are virtual clones of the same site with both shared code and shared d= atabases. Maintaining 20 copies of the code and separating the databases = into 20 domain-specific sets would be a lot of work and would lose functi= onality such as single sign-on for multiple domains without additional ef= fort. So, if I build new systems under WebDNA, I will keep the limitation= s of version 7 in mind, but I cannot afford the effort of changing system= s 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. Bria= n Fries BrainScan Software On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Donovan Brooke wr= ote: >>>> christophe.billiottet@webdna.us wrote: [snip] >>>>> In conclusion, i do not think the 6.x /global directory can save pr= ogramming time (by building a standard and local /global), is not really = saving space neither (few hundred kB?), implies major complexity for WebD= NA 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 -- Do= novan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us >>> --------------------------------------------------------- This messag= e 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 >
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:
HTML encoding in URLs (1997)
[delete] problem (1997)
[WriteFile] problems (1997)
Trouble with formula.db + more explanation (1997)
Re:HELP - NONE STOP DIGESTS. Digest for 4/24/97) (1997)
Running _every_ page through WebCat ? (1997)
unsubscribe (2000)
RAM variables (1997)
WCS Newbie question (1997)
Re requiredFields parameter (1998)
Image Upload and Auto Resize? (2003)
all records returned. (1997)
RE: High ASCII inside [LOOKUP] inside [LISTWORDS] (1998)
[URL] and [showif] or [hideif] comparisons (2003)
PCS Frames-Default page is solution! (1997)
Help name our technology! (1997)
emailer (1997)
[WebDNA] WebDNA and MAMP/Apache (Mac) (2018)
[WebDNA] multi hyperlinks in text paragraphs (2014)
WebCat2b13MacPlugin - [math][date][/math] problem (1997)