Symeon:
I think there are two problems here; closed platform, and deployment
costs. You know how many times Kevin King was hoping to find a native
connector to PHP. No response. How long did it take to get a .NET
connectivity product? I can't find out a darned thing about the product
(an earlier version of mv.NET). Once one developes, finding out the
cost of deploying an MV application is rather disconcerting. As much as
a number of people on this list try, you can never get a good buzzzzz
going because the vendor is only interested in moving forward to
maintain current revenue structures.
In the open-source world, all kinds of things are being tried, enhanced,
retrofitted, etc. There's huge interest, but little business
deployment. Most businesses are trying to use technology to decrease
costs and/or increase income. The revenue structure of the U2 products
seem to preclude this movement toward more openness and less cost.
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
*From:* [email protected]
*To:* 'U2 Users List' <[email protected]>
*Date:* 5/3/2011 5:05 AM
*Subject:* Re: [U2] Reliability doesn't raise enough issues to keep the
list busy
So maybe we all need to discuss more about the blend of technologies that we
use. I am also a member of a couple of MongoDB discussion groups, Mongo is
a fairly new DB, and i don't think it has the userbase of U2, yet those
forums are alive with technical discussion, much of it about the interfaces
from different languages into MongoDB. Then again it comes back to an older
post on here - Mongo have developed interfaces to their DB for many
languages, and many third party ones have followed, Rocket have a .net and a
java interface, the code is closed and there are very few if any third party
interfaces to say php, ruby etc. Maybe this is all linked, maybe there are
just a handful of us on this group developing in a blend of technologies
with U2 at the backend - I don't know ...
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Land
Sent: 03 May 2011 12:32
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [U2] Reliability doesn't raise enough issues to keep the list
busy
But surely the reason is that whilst some years ago we all did everything in
U2 (or D3 or whatever) today we use a blend of technologies. So it is
unlikely that you will be doing new front end development in basic, you will
have adopted a .NET or java or whatever approach. You will then, I hope, be
interfacing back to U2 for data storage and, to a greater or lesser extent,
business logic, but you are unlikely to be trying to work out how to do
massively innovative things in U2.
That is a reflection of the fact the U2 is becoming more and more a database
and less of a complete development environment. It's part of the evolution,
when I started on a CMC/Microdata Reality the operating system, database and
development environment were combined. Then the o/s bit gradually dropped
away and it all became a database and development environment on unix or
windows. Now, to some extent, the development environment is moving away
and it is becoming a database.
Arguably that is where it should have been positioned in the first place,
Pick/Reality etc were never great as operating systems, as development
environments they have had their day but it was always and still is as a
database that the true strengths lie.
George Land
APT Solutions Ltd
U2 UK Distributor
On 03/05/2011 10:00, "Symeon Breen"<[email protected]> wrote:
I am with Tony on this one, I frequent a number of .net forums, there is
massive dialogue on these - not because of bugs, but because people are
constantly driving forward the boundaries on what is possible.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno
Sent: 03 May 2011 06:36
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [U2] Reliability doesn't raise enough issues to keep the list
busy
From: David Jordan
It is the problem with a reliable product there are
not enough issues to keep the list busy. If you had
one of the competitor products there would be a ton of
issues to deal with to keep multiple forums busy.
Funny how buggy software can look good, because there
are a ton of forums to deal with all the bugs.
I feel a need to stick a pin that balloon of hot air, even if I
happen to agree with it in large part, and present an equal but
opposite view. :)
Paraphrase:
It is the problem with a dying product there are not enough
creative thoughts to keep the list busy. If you had one of the
competitor products there would be a ton of ideas to discuss to
keep multiple forums busy. Funny how great software can look bad,
because there are so few people to discuss all the wonderful ways
to use it.
Just trying to keep things real.
T
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3610 - Release Date: 05/02/11
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3611 - Release Date: 05/02/11
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
