[pLog-svn] r6088 - plog/branches/lifetype-1.2/class/security

[Andy]

Correction to homepage: http://myspew.com/1/

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Andy wrote:

> Liftype is absolutely the best content providing system I have used.  The API 
> that you have available is giving me the ability to integrate an ASP.NET 
> registration and user management application using C#.
>
> Do be rather frank, you are releasing updates in too short of intervals. I 
> understand you all have great and new features and capabilities you want to 
> make available right away.  This, in many aspects is benificial to your 
> status in the blogging and CMS world.
>
> However, it is also a downfall.  Your platform is already at a stage that can 
> be used in a production environment, and exceeds any other content system I 
> have experienced.
>
> I understand you, as developers, are excited about releasing updates with 
> perfected blocks of code, and new features.  However, just as this is gaining 
> great interest in Lifetype, the interest is moving behind in usability with 
> the constant release of primary and minor versions.
>
> In one other aspect, who wants to use a system that can not be supported more 
> than a few minor released versions.
>
> I am developing a platform integrating mono with C#, along with ASP, using 
> your API.  Your applications is already at a point of global usability, but 
> others like myself are afraid of developing blogging platforms with the 
> constant update you releases.
>
> At an early stage of development, frequent updates are reasonable.  I believe 
> your developers are at a point at which you should focuse on support of an 
> amazing product version already available, and inforce a reasonable 
> deployment of updates at a pre set minimum amount of months. 6 Months, 9 
> months is not a long time with other project standards.
>
> What your user base wants is support, security updates, and improvement 
> updates, now that, in my opinion, you have overpassed any other comparible 
> CMS platform.
>
> I understand you do not have a large amount of developers; you may even 
> think, as it is, very popular now, that you may gain even more interest with 
> early minor version updates.  However, that is what is limiting production 
> platforms to consider using your code.
>
> Please, slow down just a bit.  It will creat a baseline application feature 
> set, and its popularity, and the actuall use one can have of the systems in 
> production that could, and would be provided: results in a truely impressive, 
> global, popular platform - and response to your organization will, in my 
> opinion improve even more with this alternative release cycle.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Andy Wright
>
> http://myside.com/1/
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Oscar Renalias wrote:
>
>> I have been running 1.2.6 in renalias.net and lifetype.net, perhaps
>> it's time to release it?
>> 
>> On Dec 26, 2007 1:01 AM, Oscar Renalias <oscar at renalias.net> wrote:
>>> I just updated renalias.net and lifetype.net to 1.2.6, everything
>>> looks ok so far in there.
>>> 
>>> I think we can go ahead with 1.2.6 within a couple of days...
>>> 
>>> Oscar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 24, 2007 10:43 PM, Jon Daley <plogworld at jon.limedaley.com> wrote:
>>>>         I think 1.2.6 is ready to release, though I guess it would be 
>>>> good
>>>> to test my latest code to make sure I didn't break anything.
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Jon Daley wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Mark Wu wrote:
>>>>>> Why can't we just put the bayesian filter in last order? it seems solve
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> problem easier.
>>>>>       Does that fix everything?  It is certainly the easiest (coding and
>>>>> performance) wise.
>>>>>       With my thinking it seems like that fixes it - at least for now,
>>>>> because we don't have any other plugins that would use the inputs of 
>>>>> others.
>>>>> And we can maybe do Mark's priority idea if we ever need that sort of 
>>>>> thing.
>>>>>       As long as it works for Paul's stuff, I think that sounds good. 
>>>>> So,
>>>>> then we should take Mark's rev 6088 or whatever it is and use that, but
>>>>> modify it to pass in the previouslyRejected flag, and then put the 
>>>>> bayesian
>>>>> at the end.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> BTW, most lifetype installations in CJK site does rely on Bayesian 
>>>>>> Filter
>>>>>> to protect the spam attack. Because the tokenize algorithm can't 
>>>>>> separate
>>>>>> CJK into each atomic token. We don't use stop words and "white space" 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> seperate a paragraph into "word".
>>>>>       I am not sure what you are saying.  It seems like you are saying 
>>>>> the
>>>>> tokenizer doesn't work, so then it seems that the bayesian filter 
>>>>> wouldn't be
>>>>> very good at all...
>>>>>
>>>>>       Well, it's been 10 minutes since I read your idea of simply 
>>>>> putting
>>>>> the bayesian filter at the end, and haven't come up with a reason why it
>>>>> won't work.  So, probably good.  Do you want to do it, or me?
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jon Daley
>>>>> http://jon.limedaley.com/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
>>>>> -- Oscar Wilde
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jon Daley
>>>> http://jon.limedaley.com/
>>>> 
>>>> Music is what feelings sound like.
>>>> -- Anonymous
>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pLog-svn mailing list
>>>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>>>> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pLog-svn mailing list
>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>> 
>