I want to deliver Windows Forms source code to you. I've wanted to do it for years and I'm putting together a plan to make it happen. There are a set of issues here, and let me tell you that not everyone here is a big fan of it. But I think I can do it (other teams are trying as well).
My team (not to mention the rest of the Division) is absolutely pegged right now working on delivering VS 2005/FX 2.0), and they will be for some time to come. So I have to make this happen on the cheap. And I'd like your feedback.
Finally, Scott answered to my previous series of posts, via mail as well as on his blog. I'm happy that Scott seems to understand my point. Sometimes I get stuck for the right words, and after getting first feedback to my posts, I noticed that it you may understand them the wrong way. But he didn't.
Anyway, Scott started his answer as follows:
So a common question the last couple of days, "Is .Text Dead" ?
Absolutely not. No way. Nie..Nao. Het.
Just to be clear:
- Community Server is the evolution of .Text (I consider CS 1.0 to be the missing .Text 1.0)
- There will be a free upgrade tool to upgrade a .Text install to CS 1.0
- You 100% can run Community Server Blogs, without galleries and forums. (as you can run forums without blogs, etc)
- We will ship the source code (to keep things simple, we have held on to the source until we ship 1.0)
- You will be able to contribute
I have expected the first two points. The third item is good news for all who want a blog only. What I really like are the two last statements.
Further down his post Scott gives a rough overview of new features:
Set up and configuration is now infinitely easier and more flexible.
- We have a web based installer
- A new virtualization model capable of not only running multiple sites on a single install but the ability to use shard or unique users
- UI for creating and managing blogs
- Secured/control access to blogs (globally and individually)
- Built in search
- Support for medium trust environments
- More flexible URL overrides
- Authenticated only
- Timed (i.e., new comments for 1, 2, etc days)
- You can both hide all comments and/or turn them off
- A much simpler and documented skin layer
- Much simpler and less restrictive UrlRewriting
- Posts can be dated for the future (and will not be visible until then)
- Multiple authors per blog
- Role and Permission based access (i.e., users in role X have Post access while users in role Y have read-only access)
- Email subscriptions by post and blog
- Updated CSS Hierarchy
I don't want to repeat every single word of Scott. Read it yourself. He explains the reasons for the long delay since the last release of .Text very well.
He closes his post with
We have one minor issue to clear up and we will be releasing a release candidate to Community Sever 1.0 have already started working on plans/features for 1.1/1.2/2.0 (current plan calls for two point releases before 2.0).
To summarize, we are still making progress and if you have the time/desire to contribute, we would welcome you to contribute to CS.
One thing missing is the release date. I have many items on my to-do list. I want to adopt several mods, and have lots of additional ideas I want to realize in .Text. Is it worth to start implementing them, or should I wait for the release of CS::Blog (incl the sources)?
I was told that DonXMl has mailed Scott about my previous post. Well, I think the main point of my posts was: where's .Text going? To be more specific: Will .Text aka CSBlogs released only together with CSForums and CS::Gallery, or will there be a stand-alone version? Is Telligent going to publish the sources? Hopefully Scott (or Rob Howard) can comment on this.
BTW, others have the same questions:
The official update to .95 has been over a year in the making, and the community is getting anxious. There is some growing interest in the community for a revival of this project as open source, especially with the virtual collapse of Movable Type due to ridiculous licensing, and the unknown status of the new holder of .Text (telligent systems) with their plans to charge for the source... I am trying to have faith that a corporation can do more for the blogging engine, and the fee wasn't too high, but I have a wait and see attitude there... and I have been waiting a long time =)
If I can find the time tonight, I'll try and get the 0.96 code working at home. I also want to take a look at CS Beta 3, to see what features it has. But I have the same problem as Thomas has, I'm not looking for a full blown product which also includes a forum and a gallery. I just want my blog. And if Telligent Systems decides to release the code, it'll probably much harder to add features to it, as there's so much code. As said, I'll have a look at both.
Hell, I've got lots of feedback about my previous post. Some commented in the blog, others send me private mails. Many questions arised. Therefore, I think I have to make my point clearer.
First of all, I don't want to publish my own release of .Text. I'm not the owner of .Text. That's Scott. He did an awesome job, and I don't want to take credits of it. I love coding, and I love to learn. And I've learnt alot from the excellent architecture of .Text.
The intention of my post was more that there are many developers who did really cool changes to .Text. Let's call them mods (the changes, not the developers). Many of them have changed major parts of the code base, so they are not compatible anymore. It's not easy anymore for one to adopt changes made by another one.
On the other hand, many bloggers are using the binary release of .Text. They are no developers, they don't want to make any changes to sources, they just want to use the binaries.
My original idea was to bring all of them together. Making it more easy to exchange mods for the developers, and giving non-developers the chance to benefit from the mods. (Someone already mailed me that he gets paid for customizing .Text, so he's not very responsive about the latter 😉 )
That's what I tried to express.