DNN Forums

Thanks, Mitchel. I appreciate the quick response.

DNN Platform and the community that develops it are in fine shape.

Evoq is a commercial product built on top of DNN.

Unless you need and Evoq feature, you'll be well served by the (free) open source DNN platform.

i agree with the tenor of the article. if dnn is to survive it must become more seo sensitive and faster. these days seo = speed. the technology of dnn platform is long in the tooth. even microsoft had to re-architect .net framework with the onslaught of node.js. so a large company would need tangible and palpable assurances and evidences that evoq or platform will update with the times.

(as an aside, i heard that there was a .net core version of dnn platform in the works - is that still the case, and is there an eta? the release of dnn 9 was important technically and psychologically. and even .net core is passe with .net 5)

as a small time operator, i find dnn platform attractive and viable for the reasons stated - there is a lot of out of the box functionality. however, i struggle with speed even though in some respects it is decent to good - and i believe that my systems are properly configured and tuned. Developers need to visit page speed insights from time to time.

I think that the area of biggest decline has been has been in module variety. consolidation is inevitable, but the numbers and richness of modules has declined. some have improved. some of this is offset by multi-purpose or expressive modules.

i hope the best for the platform - i would hate to change. i do think that 2021 is a critical year for dnn.

At this point in time, there is no community effort to make a complete migration to .NET Core. Myself and David Poindexter (Strategy Lead) discussed this in two recent blog postings.

There is no migration plan, and all existing solutions would be non-functional in a transition. Meaning that it isn't possible to upgrade. This, combined with the realization of efforts necessary we are focusing efforts to improve the stability, security, and effectiveness of our current platform, which still has a long supported lifeline. We are making strides to support interoperability with .NET Standard.

There is some discussion of wanting to try for a .NET Core version, even knowing that we might not have the resources to do so, but those are very rudimentary discussions at this point.

The current DNN Platform from a performance perspective is the best baseline performer since the late 4.x days, so I think we have made good strides here as well. However, implementation and vendor selection is absolutely critical to understanding performance with DNN and options. We manage many sites that score > 90/100 on Google Pagespeed Insights and pass all Core Web Vitals metrics. However, it is easy for a content creator that doesn't know the rules to get in trouble, so balancing that act is going to be hard.

regarding .net core/.net 5/6, that would be an addition for which i would pay. in other words, if you could produce a dnn platform version ported to .net 5, i would be able and willing to pay a modest amount. i could not afford the 8,000+ usd price tag of evoq, and even 1000usd would keep me on the fence, but 300-500 usd is very palatable.

my interest in .net x is the performance from the updated threading (and maybe process management) models. that is seo you can believe in :-o

i do get 95-98 on my desktop page speed score, but 80-82 is a good run on mobile - although i got a couple of flukes at 85-87.

As an open-source project we don't have a model to be able to commercialize, and honestly, the commercialization is what caused a lot of the history that we have been working as a community to clean-up in the past few years. A .NET Core version of DNN will be a totally new audience, and if we are speaking bluntly, it SHOULD contain a slightly different architecture to truly leverage the new stuff.

But it would not be DNN on .NET Core, it would be a "Newer Version of DNN,".

Last estimates were in the 6,000+ hour effort to build something, without testing etc, which is about a $1MM investment or more.

Discussions are still ongoing, but anything would be 18+ months away for sure.

it is definitely a rabbit hole to contemplate what a dnn 5/6 (forget 3.1) application would be and look like. there are probably two modalities of cms systems aimed at two audiences - 1. website operators 2. intranet operators where the former is aimed at broad online experiences, the latter at in-house captive experiences. add core web vitals and progressive web apps to the mix and you are talking a lot of spice and jalapeno indigestion.

it could beg two products or at least 2 versions of the new one. nevertheless, technology wise, and for the sake of the children and future, the dnn technology has to advance beyond its current state, regardless of its current constituency's investment. a two product strategy is the only way to handle it given the very credible argument in favor of serving the legacy base. and it is imperative if for no other reasons than microsoft calling deprecation and eol on it all.

however, a newly imagined cms with new architecture would breathe fresh life into dnn platform world. there is a storm to weather, but sunshine will out.

It is easy for people to confuse the DNN Platform, an open source software product that is created and maintained by the DNN Community with DNN Evoq, a commercial product built on top of the DNN Platform by DNN Corporation.

The source of confusion is the fact that DNN Platform and DNN Corporation once were owned by DNN Corporation. That has not been the case for the 3 to 4 years.

Those who are interested in the DNN Platform can learn all about the state of DNN Platform and the DNN Community by attending DNN Summit which, by coincidence, occurs this Wednesday and Thursday. That's February 24-25. Our community's leaders will discuss the state of DNN at the opening session on Wednesday morning. See dnnsummit.org for all of the details.