i admit that the issue is complex, but at the end of the day, .net framework is at the end of its innovative life whether or not microsoft expresses support for it or not, and whether or not diehards stick to it. i work for a subsidiary of a major fortune 20 company who will not let me run .net framework for security reasons which forced an upgrade of a product from .net framework 4.7.1 to 4.8.1 to .net 8 - all in a few short weeks - somewhat painful. and no self-respecting developer would want to be stuck in the cobol of .net. but i understand the business issues. .net 9 will release in november. the world does not stand still.

i agree that dnn offers exceptional features unavailable elsewhere. for example, i have been looking at nopcommerce but realized that the combination of dnn and revindex shopping cart is materially superior. i think of dnn + revindex as in the gartner leader quadrant (overlooking the technology issue) while nopcommerce is in the challenger quadrant with its superior technology. for some reason i can't have my cake and eat it too.

https://www.openstore-ecommerce.com/en-gb/ that is better. :-) ....... you could argue HotCakes, but not RevIndex for me.

I agree with the ,Net thoughts about moving, but I think it's more a concept that MS have been pushing than security. If it was security it would have had a security patch for any problem on .Net Framework, it is still supported. But, I take your point and I have been banging the same drum for years. The only problem we have standing in our way is money, time and resource.

If you get you fortune 20 company to invest in DNN, I'd be on your team. :-)

> a major fortune 20 company who will not let me run .net framework for security reasons
So they don't use Windows, Excel, Word, SharePoint, IIS, Exchange?
Of everything I heard about people refusing .Net Framework for irrelevant reasons, security is the least justifiable.

> The only problem we have standing in our way is money, time and resource
No, the extensibility architecture of DNN is all webforms based, unless something extraordinary happens to make webforms work on .Net (core), we can't migrate no matter how much money and resources you throw at it. And that will make it so most 3rd party extensions would not work.

There are other .Net (core) CMS, they use shiny new stuff but don't have the maturity and ecosystem of DNN.

> The only problem we have standing in our way is money, time and resource
No, the extensibility architecture of DNN is all webforms based, unless something extraordinary happens to make webforms work on .Net (core), we can't migrate no matter how much money and resources you throw at it. And that will make it so most 3rd party extensions would not work.

Hi Daniel, If you look at my earlier comment, I don;t think DNN in .Net Core can be compatible with the .Net Framework version. It would be a new system, but all the "functionality" can be moved to .Net Core. With enough money, time and resource. :-)

Yeah, but the subject just before is about specific 3rd party modules made for DNN that would not even work if DNN migrated to .Net core.

Posted By Daniel Valadas on 8/31/2024 12:39 PM
> a major fortune 20 company who will not let me run .net framework for security reasons
So they don't use Windows, Excel, Word, SharePoint, IIS, Exchange?
Of everything I heard about people refusing .Net Framework for irrelevant reasons, security is the least justifiable.

First, I wholeheartedly appreciate this discussion and hope it continues, and in a positive and productive manner. I agree with Daniel that you need probably need to look more at the company’s motivation for saying “don’t use net framework”. It part of everything in the IT infrastructure, for better or worse, it’s going to be supported going forward—including security patches. So that’s just incorrect misinformation imho. It’s also to understand there is a distinction between net framework and web forms. While there is no — and may never be—a silver bullet way forward for moving off webforms, webforms is still supported and will be. DNN is built on webforms, but as others point out, even moving the entire platform away still leaves the rest of the modules and ecosystem with a huge burden. We’ve been diligently working on modernizing the forums module to carve it into manageable pieces that—over time—will make it easier to swap out of webforms. But it takes a lot of time. It’s largely volunteer effort here. Unless someone funds a complete DNN rewrite, it’s not going to happen quickly, if at all. As for jumping on a new and shiny bandwagon, there will be trade offs. I would look very carefully at the business requirements for what you want to build and see what is the best fit. For 95% of users, the tried-and-true is probably better than new and shiny :)

PS. For the record, I do still write Cobol, and get paid for it:)

Posted By Daniel Valadas on 8/31/2024 12:39 PM
> a major fortune 20 company who will not let me run .net framework for security reasons
So they don't use Windows, Excel, Word, SharePoint, IIS, Exchange?
Of everything I heard about people refusing .Net Framework for irrelevant reasons, security is the least justifiable.

> The only problem we have standing in our way is money, time and resource
No, the extensibility architecture of DNN is all webforms based, unless something extraordinary happens to make webforms work on .Net (core), we can't migrate no matter how much money and resources you throw at it. And that will make it so most 3rd party extensions would not work.

There are other .Net (core) CMS, they use shiny new stuff but don't have the maturity and ecosystem of DNN.

regarding security, firstly running the latest software is an owasp principle for guarding against and/or remediating security deficiencies. microsoft and all vendors, whether or not contradictory or hypocritical, fear monger with that idea. every time i start java, oracle blares the dangers of running software which is a few weeks out of date let alone a few years. in any event, at the end of the day, whether or not there is an objective security risk, corporate security has the last say, and in my case, and i am certain i am not alone, running .net framework is not allowed although applying the latest security patches should overcome the objection but it doesn't. i wouldn't even be allowed to run .net core 3.1 (although the issues there are admitedly different).

the maturity and ecosystem of dnn are a depreciating asset. whether security, performance, functionality, and others, .net framework is limited and doomed. the typewriter met its fate as hard as ibm tried to push selectrics.

however, dnn continues to provide value but the complications of upgrading software for the os, frameworks, application, and modules will eventually overwhelm it.

on a side note, orchard core is an interesting cms which warrants consideration in principle.

 

 

duplicate deleted

Posted By johnhenley on 9/1/2024 9:28 AM
PS. For the record, I do still write Cobol, and get paid for it:)

go man go! i do miss the old dbase iii+ days.