I agree with the comment below, but only to a point. I had another developer in our
company raise concern over orion because of a database connection error that is thrown
in the FAQ section of the orionserver.com website. I expressed to him, and I firmly
believe, that I'd much rather have them working on new features and the occasional bug
that pops up than updating/fixing/making the web site great. I agree with the PR that
a good website provides, but great PR with a bad product isn't what we as developers
want, at least I hope not. Maybe I'm among the minority, but the pocketbooks of our
company rely on our technical expertise when it comes to making decisions, and I'm
alot more comfortable going with Orion than Jrun, which is at least somewhat close in
price range, just on the fact of standards compliance. I know that JRun 3.1 is J2EE
certified, but we had nothing but headaches trying to get it to work. Going to Orion
was like a dream come true, and as long as they continue!
with a product that is easy to use and follows the spec, I'm all for it.
Jeff Hubbach.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 20:43:34 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>UPDATE THE WEB SITE ONCE A WEEK
>include simple news...even just a paragraph or to. perhaps explaining latest updates
>(in betas). If you have no news....add link to new clients/web sites...I'm sure
>...this would take about 10 minutes a week and would go a long way in helping me
>convince people to buy it...believe it or not. I know it has no relevance on the
>quality of the product, but it would make a huge difference in giving the people I
>work with confidence in Orion's future. This is necessary because orion is not open
>source and we can not update the orionserver.com site as a community. I know this is
>what orionsupport is for, however, when I have to get people to commit money to a
>product simple things go a long way. I hope this was a more productive comment.
>
