We don't have one. Isn't this thread about adding a list of NHibernate-related (commercial) tools to NHForge?
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > Which is the page of the tools ? > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Dentler <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Haven't we crossed this bridge already? We have a book page. No matter how >> (very very very) little the hourly rate may be for authors, it's still a >> commercial product. >> >> Having said that, if someone were to write a significant NHibernate eBook >> and distribute it for free, I'd still expect to find it on the book page. >> >> By this same logic, I think the "significant" open source tools like FNH >> should be included in any list of add-on tools. In my mind, the distinction >> between open source / non-profit and for-profit is arbitrary. >> >> My two cents >> - Jason >> >> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hopefully we can have all opinions of all vendors here... >>> >>> Perhaps we (NH team) are worried about something that for you (vendors) >>> is not a problem. >>> >>> In practice we can give you a space in NH-Forge, you can blog a review of >>> your product and so on but what you can't do is start a commercial war and >>> involve us. >>> >>> If you can come in a sort of agreement, we are open to hear proposal >>> about how give more visibility to commercial products inside >>> www.nhforge.org >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:33 AM, sbohlen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> NOTE: This is a continuation of a discussion branch that began in this >>>> thread of the NHUSERS group: >>>> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers/browse_thread/thread/166cd3b0e77c9e35/056321a3ec570d3b >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> >>>> Frans: >>>> >>>> Uh....I'm honestly a bit confused by your response as I think we're >>>> going to have to declare that we seem to be "in violent agreement" on >>>> (nearly) all of these points. >>>> >>>> From reading your comments, my concerns appear to be yours as well: I >>>> too am interested in an area of NHForge that can assist adopters of NH >>>> in finding commercial tools to improve their "NH experience" but in >>>> such a way that the NHForge site itself (and by extension the NH team) >>>> isn't directly involved in endorsing, ranking, commenting, or >>>> otherwise doing anything that would make it appear as if one vendor or >>>> tool was better/worse than any other vendor/tool (e.g., NH is able to >>>> maintain its neutrality). >>>> >>>> My list of 'principles' that I tried to enumerate in my post seemed >>>> (to me, at least) a reasonable set of guidelines to enable us to >>>> achieve exactly those goals (providing visibility for such offerings >>>> while maintaining neutrality). I think remaining neutral is 'good >>>> practice' in re: NH's relation with commercial tools/projects, but >>>> frankly I think its equally good practice in re: NH's relation with >>>> open-source and/or free tools/projects as well (e.g., I think it >>>> equally inappropriate for NH to be 'recommending' one OSS tool over >>>> another -- just as with commercial offerings). >>>> >>>> My suggestion was to find a way to list such products/vendors without >>>> appearing to 'endorse' or 'rank' them in any manner. >>>> >>>> I don't think I said (and I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently >>>> imply) that there is no place in the NH ecosystem for commercial >>>> offerings -- quite the reverse, in fact. I was merely trying to >>>> suggest that whatever manner is decided upon to attempt to increase >>>> 'visibility' of such things on the NHForge site be accomplished in >>>> such a way that NH's neutrality towards any of these offerings remain >>>> intact. >>>> >>>> I certainly recognize that one level of such imperfect neutrality will >>>> be instantly sacrificed merely by listing a product/vendor on the >>>> NHForge site, but that's why I indicated that it needed to be very >>>> clear to any vendor HOW to get their product listed should they want >>>> to do so (e.g., so that it wasn't made to appear that the listed >>>> vendors/products were in any way part of an "elite club" that over >>>> vendors were unable to 'join'). >>>> >>>> I hope this serves to clarify the intent of my comments (even if it >>>> appears I wasn't entirely clear in my prior content). >>>> >>>> -Steve B. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fabio Maulo >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
