You searched for the word(s): userid:609791

More Search Options

RSS Available

• Re: Concerns about viability of DNN

  While I don't discount any of the things you listed above, I do think I have a valid point. My post wasn't about DEMANDing anything from the team. I do, in fact know what it's like to work on a volunteer effort. And I do know the special challenges facing a volunteer group. Nor was my post griping about a shoddy product or anything else like. I obviously don't think it's a bad product since I use it on about five sites I run. Likewise, I have never written anything disparaging about DNN. In fact

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/15/2005

• Re: Concerns about viability of DNN

  Hmmm. I have some issues with a few things in this thread. One of the biggest things that gripes me in this community is when someone says something in the slightest bit disparaging and then gets an earful of "But it's a volunteer effort!" Huh? What to the who now? Why does having this as a volunteer effort make it any less of a "real" software project. DotNetNuke.com is a community which offers a product for use. That product just happens to cost zero dollars. In the end, the people who use it don

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/14/2005

• Re: Intranet wishlist

  kennsterdude wrote: robaxx wrote: It is a common fallacy that having an intranet means that we must have an internal website. All it really means is we do our work on the internal network. Typically, the corporate IT group is convinced that the only way to build an intranet is to install a website and content manage it. This has been the fashion for a few years now and is still the way it is usually done. Such sites are also the most ineffective working tool ever presented to the office worker. Another

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/6/2005

• Re: 3.0 doesn't allow single user base in multi-portal solution?

  fabianus76 wrote: Hi kennsterdude, in fact to me, the most absurde thing is that the .NET Framework limits a user to one application. Anybody knows a good reason why this is so? Regards, Fabian As stated before, Microsoft probably had a very good reason for implementing this behavior. Unfortunately, not always do models and reality compare out the same. Meaing that the best laid plans, etc. often go awry. Remember that Microsoft built .Net 2.0 for the majority of the world. In the end, as much as

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/6/2005

• Re: DotNetNuke.com doesn't use 4.0?

  crpietschmann wrote: Why isn't DotNetNuke.com using DNN 4.0? I know it's functionaly equivalant to 3.2, but 4.0 uses .NET 2.0. I wanna see it in action. I tihnk that the whole point of this thread is to wonder that if the lastest version is so great (which it is), then why aren't the people propounding it using it? Of course, most of us understand that things aren't always black-and-white, but in a case like this, I can understand a new person wondering this exact thing, and I can see people (managers

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/6/2005

• Re: Database on web server or off... multi vs 1 DB

  Ahmun wrote: I expect about 500,000 hits a month spread across these 9 websites. Cost is definitely a big factor, otherwise I wouldn't even pose the question of installing the database on the web server. I'm going to be using Sql2005 Express and would like to know if that would be adequate for the DNN sites as well as keep the site performing smoothly under the traffic I expect. Any more insights? I come at this problem more as a systems engineer than as a programmer, so please keep that in mind

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/6/2005

• Re: DNN Programmer Needed - Partnership!

  I'm sure there are people here who would want to reply. But, it seems like you are being very vague about details. Perhaps you could enighten us somewhat...

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/6/2005

• Re: Looking for partners in building DotNetNuke horror rpg game web application

  jauld wrote: Is there a sure fire positioning that would work for this? I don't think there's a sure-fire way for any thing of this sort. Best bet is to offer everything you possibly can (within reason and the confines of the system) and make it marketable to both players and module purchasers.

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/6/2005

• Re: Real World DotNetNuke - Part III

  skmin wrote: How many of you think that the UI of the document module that comes with the core intuitive? Probably most of you who are reading this techie forum think so. I thought it was the easiest thing to use for a group of non techie people to share some documents until this horror story. I had a demo/hands-on training to a group of people, about 20 or so, to demonstrate DNN capabilities. The first module that I chose to demonstrate was the documents module. A big mistake. I told them it is

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/5/2005

• Re: Looking for partners in building DotNetNuke horror rpg game web application

  adefwebserver wrote: How about? 1) I could install a DNN module and create my own worlds 2) My "DNN World" could talk to other "DNN Worlds" (other sites running the same module but with their own "rooms" and "objects") 3) A person could start on my site but wonder into rooms of other sites (connected by web services) 4) Some of the rooms on the "outside" "DNN Worlds" could be locked to "outsiders" I would actually have to visit the site to gain access to those rooms (they could charge a fee. Basically

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by DannSmith on 12/4/2005