Archive
Monthly
Go
|
|
DNN Blog
Feb
9
Posted by:
Navin V Nagiah
2/9/2009
Really? Many months ago, likely close to an year ago, I read an article on why Barack Obama wasn't 'black enough' to win the election. Likewise, I have heard a couple of people ask skeptically about DotNetNuke's open source credentials - as you might expect, these are more often than not people from the 'pure' (read J2EE / PHP) world; and sometimes lay persons who automatically conclude that there 'Microsoft' and 'open source' don't go together.
Some people have been surprised that there is such a widely successful open source project DotNetNuke on the Microsoft stack and in the MS ecosystem (Incidentally, this was one of our challenges in raising our Series A). Some others, have questioned the degree of our open source credentials - Extent of Read/Write access to the code repository; Left License - Left enough?; Community Participation etc.
As I thought about this more . I realized there is no one way to skin a cat. Every open source project has so many different parameters - it is difficult if not impossible to come up with 'universal objective criteria' acceptable to all for judgment and/or assessment.
As I continued to think . I wondered . Forget the criteria, what is open source? As I talked to people and asked that simple questions - I realized open source has different interpretations; and the interpretations depended on the person's experience with open source to-date and on what he or she was trying to get out of open source.
Some examples …
To a Developer . "Open Source" means the "collaborative and open / transparent development of software"
To a Technical / Product Executive . "Open Source" means a "better software development model"
To a Business Executive . "Open Source" means a "new and better software business model; software distribution model; or software sales model or some combination"
To the linguistically inclined . "Open Source" means "software that is open; i.e. software whose source code is open"
To the Customer (Technical) . "Open Source" means "software that is open, reliance and that can be easily enhanced or maintained
To the Customer (Business) . "Open Source" means "reliable software that provides greater value/dollar that everybody seems to be talking about"
Who is right? Everybody is right in their own way. Then again, Nobody is right --- when viewed from the others perspective. It reminds me of the story of the 5 blind men who each described the elephant differently (the one who felt the trunk described it as a snake; the one who felt the tail as a rope; the one who felt the side as a wall . etc.).
So, what does open source mean to DNN Corp?
From our perspective, we don't want to get caught up in the linguistics of open source. For us, open source is a means to an end. The end for us is ...
first, to ensure that DotNetNuke becomes the defacto standard for building web applications (web sites, intranets, extranets etc.) in the world - first on the Microsoft stack, and then elsewhere;
second, to ensure that we enrich all the participants in our ecosystem - we have done this so far from a product / technology perspective - we intend to take that to the business side of the house as well
... and in the process of doing both the above, to enrich ourselves as an organization.
As for the term "open source" itself - the bottom line is how much value has the project added to the economy or market eco-system .
Well, at ...
· 5.7M+ Downloads
· 450,000+ Live Production Instances of the Software
· Hundreds of thousands of DotNetNuke Users and Developers
· Hundreds of SI, Module Vendors, Skin Vendors and Hosting Providers who have built their businesses on this platform .
... How many so called "pure" open source projects have added comparable economic value? We rest our case!
8 comment(s) so far...
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
"first, to ensure that DotNetNuke becomes the defacto standard for building web applications (web sites, intranets, extranets etc.) in the world - first on the Microsoft stack, and then elsewhere;"
So, you want to rule the world. Sounds like a doomed plan from the start. You can't be all things to all people. If you go chasing after that you will make damaging compromises. Just do what is right and do it to the best of your ability. Let people say what they will. Let others do what they do best, even when it is in your space. I'm all for big if it's done right, but big done right does not come by having big as a goal.
By Andrew Hawes on
2/10/2009
|
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
I have had the battle of DNN being open source as well, cause it doesn't have billions of "cute" modules written to do silly things. Or there aren't a billion skins all for free. Instead I have to pay someone for a skin package. "Typically" there are tons of free skins, but those that don't think DNN as open source send you a link to Snowcovered, and then a link to their "free" stuff. To me DNN is the open source platform for the smart business. It works well as a community / free / open source platform as well, but is really the only option for a business, to go with. Businesses have higher standards, and well a bit of bank roll where they can afford to spend 100 bucks to save them hours of work. Also security, most open source platforms lack on it horridly. Not the platform itself, but the swarm of free modules which do little more then send the database in a cute package to someone else.
I think DNN's objecters just dislike the fact they need MS products which are not free to support the free open source platfrom.
By keeperofstars on
2/10/2009
|
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
I have seen many posts here in defense of DNN's Open Source Creds. It reminds me of when I found myself in an AMWAY meeting. They spent the first 20 min.s explaining that the perception of them was not true and that they were legit. I didn't know the perception of them and learned it there, from them.
I believe the top level participants in DNN are very aware and find themselves articulating a defense often.
I think as a person out here in the Ecosystem I would really like to here you guys celebrate the benefits you have found in Open source. Articulate the benefits of Open source and basically sound the trumpet with regard to the amazing benefits DNN offers to the EcoSystem and to Open source. DNN is one of the great benefactors to the open source community and to the greater Web Community. You have partnered with other open source projects like fck Editor to your mutual benefit and I assume you will continue to do this.
Sometimes we need to vent. Sometimes we need to defend. Still I think it is more compelling to celebrate.
By Phil Speth on
2/10/2009
|
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
I have had the battle of DNN being open source as well, cause it doesn't have billions of "cute" modules written to do silly things. Or there aren't a billion skins all for free. Instead I have to pay someone for a skin package. "Typically" there are tons of free skins, but those that don't think DNN as open source send you a link to Snowcovered, and then a link to their "free" stuff. To me DNN is the open source platform for the smart business. It works well as a community / free / open source platform as well, but is really the only option for a business, to go with. Businesses have higher standards, and well a bit of bank roll where they can afford to spend 100 bucks to save them hours of work. Also security, most open source platforms lack on it horridly. Not the platform itself, but the swarm of free modules which do little more then send the database in a cute package to someone else.
I think DNN's objecters just dislike the fact they need MS products which are not free to support the free open source platfrom.
By keeperofstars on
2/10/2009
|
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
First up - I think this whole project is a step in the right direction for MS-based development efforts. Open source is generally a "Good Thing"(tm).
I think the problem (perception?) has a lot less to do with the fact it requires an MS stack to run DotNetNuke, and a lot more to do with the common understanding of an open source development model - for all the semantics, I think it's still expected that the source to a product and it's SCM repository are both open, the processes are transparent and readily available for new users to get involved with.
Where I believe DNN really fails though is in it's support of open web standards. I know there's work going on to make this right, but right now as a new user of the product, it is a real mess HTML, CSS and JS-wise. Nobody needs to explain it to me - I get the history - MS stack means MS browsers (even when they are 5 years behind the rest of the pack), but this is what puts DNN a step behind other open source competitors. Get this right and I think you'll have a lot less complaining about being open enough.
Sorry, some of that came off harsh - I'm trying to put my point of view forward, not attack DNN. It's all headed in the right direction, it just needs some spit and polish. Stop defending and just keep making the product better.
By Tony Arnold on
2/10/2009
|
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
OK, this one IS a little bit of an attack:
"How many so called "pure" open source projects have added comparable economic value? We rest our case"
I think you have rested your case a little too early. I am interested in the answer to your question, as I don't believe the answer will vindicate your argument - reckon you could show us the data from other projects you're basing this on?
By Tony Arnold on
2/11/2009
|
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
Tony, I agree that it does take a lot more effort to make things compliant, etc. I am glade to see DNN make the jump with DNN 5, which was sorta a year behind. LOL, but was well worth the wait. I am loving the new DNN 5 design, and the improvements the core team are making. The difference is just so night and day, but we knew it would be. I think with a few extra tools, DNN could simplify things for your non-technical people to better self develop. I would love to see a skin module / configuration, like Vbulletin boards has. You download a base skin, and from there the user can change all sorts of color, fonts, icons, etc all from a cute user friendly control panel. Makes for a great user experience. Not to stray any farther, the point becomes, as you said a few spit balls and lots of scrubbing and DNN will fit in more with open source communities.
By keeperofstars on
2/11/2009
|
Re: Not Black Enough ... Not White Enough ... Not Open Source Enough?
I'm sorry to say that DotNetNuke does not seem to be a product with 4 years out.
documentation is poor and basically fraudulent, with file names being updated to 'seem current with the latest version' (now 5.1x) but still old, outdated and for version 3!!!!
I've seen 99 DNN sites and 3 looked tolerable. Even the pay skins were just plain UGLY, not to mention the user interface...
By dfggfdhgfh fghgfhgfhgf on
8/17/2009
|
|