Re: [WebDNA] WebDNA 7
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2011
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 107568
interpreted = N
texte = 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, >=20 > 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: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 :) >=20 > As always, long live WebDNA. >=20 > -- -Dan Strong > Chief Marketing Officer > WebDNA Software Corporation > http://www.webdna.us >=20 >=20 > 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=20 >>> What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. ;-) Donovan -- = Donovan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us=20 >> --------------------------------------------------------- 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=20 >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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:
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, >=20 > 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: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 :) >=20 > As always, long live WebDNA. >=20 > -- -Dan Strong > Chief Marketing Officer > WebDNA Software Corporation > http://www.webdna.us >=20 >=20 > 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=20 >>> What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate. ;-) Donovan -- = Donovan Brooke Euca Design Center www.euca.us=20 >> --------------------------------------------------------- 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=20 >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------------------------------- > 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
Stuart Tremain
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:
re:Clickable maps and WebCatalog? (1996)
Q: writefile and uploads. (1998)
Forcing Paragraph Breaks on Results (1998)
WARNING: deletedb anomaly (2002)
Numbers only code (2000)
Webmerchant/Cybercash (2000)
WebCatalog Technical Reference (1997)
Problems getting parameters passed into email. (1997)
Adding up line items. (2000)
Multiple security dbs (1997)
WebCat2 beta 11 - new prefs ... (1997)
IP address & domain name problem (2003)
What is WebDNA (1997)
Sitebuilder (2004)
Problem searching bw & ne of a word (1999)
Possible Bug in 2.0b15.acgi (1997)
StoreBuilder Shopping Cart (2000)
WriteFile and returns... (2000)
Odd search results, or odd programmer, not sure which... (2002)
[WebDNA] Limits? (2009)