envolution-devel

Rif: [Envolution-devel] eNvolution vs Postnuke

[<Luc...@cs...>]
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Re: Rif: [Envolution-devel] eNvolution vs Postnuke

[Sjahrazad A. <sja...@ba...>]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:59:13 +0200, Luca.Gioppo wrote
> [...]
> Lets publish a roadmap since nobody starts one I'll give a first 
> idea to work on: [...]

I'm totally agreed with Luca. If we're concentrate more strengthen our team, 
support, marketing etc, I'm sure our community will grow fast. We have 
already envo network sites in some countries, this is also proven about the 
envo added value.

Starting arguing between pn vs envo again :) will be contra productive. Let 
pn has its own and vice versa.

sjah 

Re: Rif: [Envolution-devel] eNvolution vs Postnuke

[Scott K. <sc...@ki...>]

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 11:50, Sjahrazad Alamsjah wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:59:13 +0200, Luca.Gioppo wrote
> > [...]
> > Lets publish a roadmap since nobody starts one I'll give a first 
> > idea to work on: [...]
> 
> I'm totally agreed with Luca. If we're concentrate more strengthen our team, 
> support, marketing etc, I'm sure our community will grow fast. We have 
> already envo network sites in some countries, this is also proven about the 
> envo added value.
> 

A roadmap already exists as well as the philosophy Envolution was
founded upon here:

http://www.envolution.com/index.php?name=Subjects&file=index&req=listpages&subid=2

> Starting arguing between pn vs envo again :) will be contra productive. Let 
> pn has its own and vice versa.

I agree that re-igniting the flames would be counter productive, but
everyine should be aware that there is a lot of FUD spreading going on
about Envolution on some sites and discussion lists.

Wouldn't it be prudent to set the record straight and make our
collective voices heard that we wish to be judged on factual information
instead of outright false statements. The bottom line is Envolution
development suffers because of this.

The opriginal title of this thread should not have been Envolution vs
PostNuke...instead it should have been:

Envolution vs FUD

Because Envolution is not competing against PostNuke or Xaraya or
PHPNuke or Xoop's et al. We compete against our own abilities and faults
and should not have to comepete against FUD from a few people who keep
spreading it.

Max is talking about setting the record straight and making our
collective voices heard. Specifically that the Envolution community
wants to be free from false and misleading statements and that we are
good open source contributing netizens.

Zoom

Re: Rif: [Envolution-devel] eNvolution vs Postnuke

[TiMax <ma...@em...>]

I agree but now is time to finish these flames, because lot of=
 people and maybe lot of developers read it, 
beleive it and don't check eNvolution, so we loss lot of=
 potential developers and helpers.

And me also i don't want to start flames in portalzine.de site or=
 other, for that me and Zoom work to write 
document to explain better what is eNvolution and what people can=
 have with eNvo.
When document are ready, i submit it in this mailing list, we=
 revised it and we publish it, so invite people to 
go and read it.

So we don't have flames but people can read it and understand 

TiMax



On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:59:13 +0200, Luc...@cs... wrote:
>
>  As always, I do not like loosing time warring.
>  It only reduce the time for coding.
>  Lets demonstrate the difference with fact instead of words, we=
 are quite
>  ready for the new version with lots of good points (for mine=
 part I believe
>  that when complete the Oracle compatibility will make the=
 difference on the
>  chioce for many people running intranets on business=
 realties)
>  Lets publish the roll of developers so to shed light on the=
 community
>  besides giving the merit to those behind the envo project.
>  Lets publish a roadmap since nobody starts one I'll give a=
 first idea to
>  work on:
>
>  1.2.x Compatibility with Oracle (not complete), installation=
 on Oracle,
>  benchmark   (ready)
>  1.2.x+1     Complete compatibility with Oracle, optimization=
 en code
>  cleaning, bug fix.      (end july or september)
>  1.2.x+2     LDAP integration as a native funtionality on users=
    (end
>  sectember)
>  1.2.x+3     recursivity on categories for Download and groups =
    (end
>  ottobre)
>
>  1.3   All Oracle converted (complete compatibility), some=
 extra module
>  converted for Oracle, translation checked, accessible (W3C)=
 template, docs
>  for users and developers, an empty module and block for=
 tutorial and new
>  development       [end of year?]
>
>  these are ideas.
>
>  I just say: let's people speak and stand on our road, ignoring=
 them, when
>  our work will be there when theirs will be just a forgotten=
 memory we shall
>  rejoice.
>  Bye
>  Luca

Re: Rif: [Envolution-devel] eNvolution vs Postnuke

[<s.k...@pr...>]

@zoom:

[...] A roadmap already exists as well as the philosophy Envolution was
 founded upon here:


http://www.envolution.com/index.php?name=Subjects&file=index&req=listpages&s
ubid=2
[...]

Some parts of this roadmap are out-of-date. We have to revise it. Because in
the meantime we have include lot of functions, modules, theme-engine and
fixes. I think we have to set a new starting point and new milestones.
And I mean only the roadmap. Not the other parts of this document.

[...]
... The opriginal title of this thread should not have been Envolution vs
PostNuke...instead it should have been:

Envolution vs FUD
...
[...]

No comment.
I heart from TiMax that you and Max will write a document which explains the
features of eNvo in details.
I don't like this kind of discussion. We have all seen the results of such
unproductive discussions last year on Postnuke.
And I think it is very difficult to compare every CMS.
So, the best way is to publish the advantages of eNvo and what our community
differs from others.
Everyone can make itself its own picture and can test what system is for him
the best.

And now stop this thread. It is impossible to compare.

WindMeUp

Re: Rif: [Envolution-devel] eNvolution vs Postnuke

[Scott K. <sc...@ki...>]

On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 17:06, Stefan K=C3=B6hler wrote:
> [...]
> ... The opriginal title of this thread should not have been Envolution =
vs
> PostNuke...instead it should have been:
>=20
> Envolution vs FUD
> ...
> [...]
>=20
> No comment.

Too late. You made one ;)

> I heart from TiMax that you and Max will write a document which explain=
s the
> features of eNvo in details.
> I don't like this kind of discussion.

I don't think explaining Envolution's features in detail should be a
problem. In order to attract new developers and increase our install
base people will have to know these things. This is very evident in our
own forums. There are numerous posts which address Envolutions features
quite frequently. For example does Envolution work with module "A" or
module "B", etc.

> We have all seen the results of such unproductive discussions last year=
 on Postnuke.

Had PostNuke published correct information and not marginalized a
significant portion of it's community then we wouldn't be here right now
and Max, Brandon, Brian, and I would not have created Envolution in the
first place. If we don't publish honest and accurate information about
own community and the code we publish then we will end up just like
PostNuke.

> And I think it is very difficult to compare every CMS.

And I am not suggesting we compare CMS's. That is exactly why I spelled
out in my post that the title of the thread should have been Envolution
vs FUD instead of Envolution vs PostNuke. Because this is nothing about
PostNuke. It's about specific people posting inaccurate and misleading
information which results in people not wanting to try Envolution! And
that my friend should be unacceptable to everyone participating in the
Envolution community.

> So, the best way is to publish the advantages of eNvo and what our comm=
unity
> differs from others.

Exactly. That is what I am proposing. Accurate and honest information to
account for the FUD and misinformation being published by others.

> Everyone can make itself its own picture and can test what system is fo=
r him
> the best.
>=20

They certainly can IF they have accurate and honest information to work
with. But John Q.Public might not even try Envolution based on some of
the false things being reported by certain people.


> And now stop this thread. It is impossible to compare.
>=20
> WindMeUp
>=20

No one is comparing. As for stopping this thread you are welcome to not
reply to it at any time. There was no flaming being done and there were
no insults or disrespect shown to anyone. So if I have somehow offended
you for bringing up a touchy subject I am truely sorry. But I don't
think ignoring serious issues is a very good way to handle anything.

This is a serious issue which involves the entire viability of
Envolution as a project and that is something that I personally take
very serious.

Zoom

Re: Rif: [Envolution-devel] eNvolution vs Postnuke

[TiMax - E. <web...@en...>]

On 04 Jun 2003 21:15:36 -0500, Scott Kindley wrote:
>  And I am not suggesting we compare CMS's. That is exactly why=
 I spelled
>  out in my post that the title of the thread should have been=
 Envolution
>  vs FUD instead of Envolution vs PostNuke. Because this is=
 nothing about
>  PostNuke. It's about specific people posting inaccurate and=
 misleading
>  information which results in people not wanting to try=
 Envolution! And
>  that my friend should be unacceptable to everyone=
 participating in the
>  Envolution community.

yes and that is the problem ... and we loss  lot of potential=
 developers

I don't want to start a flame, i don't like flames, and for that=
 we work to write this document so instead to start 
flames we can invite people to read this document, if Zoom are=
 able to decode all my poor english lol

TiMax