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

[Andy]

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
>