Slashdot Mirror

How about these to name just a few?

• ASP.NET MVC
• Castle Project
• NHibernate
• NAnt
• NUnit
• CruiseControl
• TortoiseSVN
• DotNetNuke

Plus tons more available on:

• CodePlex
• CodeProject
• Sourceforge

Untrue. And I could give you many examples. For now I will just stick with one: DotNetNuke, an OpenSource and free CMS of quite good quality for the .NET platform. They make a great product, have a good community, give their product away for free (free as in "beer), and supply the sourcecode along with it with a semi-free (as in "freedom") license which compares somewhat to an LGPL.

Can you please describe to me, in what way you think they are evil?
(because I surely can't see it).

I've never used DotNetNuke, which is basically a Microsoft friendly rip off of PHP-Nuke, but the mere fact that it exists and that "Microsofties" are using that as free software to make their lives better just pisses me off.

And all of the "improvements" that Sun has made to OpenOffice.org? C'mon, we all know that it started as Star Office, and even though it's free and it does a great job, I just hate telling everyone about how it allows them to do everything that they need without buying Microsoft office. The stench of corporate influence makes me gag as I make great reports with awesome graphics. I wish that they'd just stop developing it.

Looks like they are running DotNetNuke. If you can overlook its use of ASP.NET, it is a great (and open source) little web portal app.

It's a good thing that stakeholders of MS and open source are finding how they can coexist. In addition to site like Ohloh.net and CodePlex, there are more emerging open source applications for the .NET platform. To avoid IP issues, a BSD license may be preferred by the MS crowd, and is featured in applications such as DotNetNuke and ListRing. The idea that it is MS versus open source as a whole is simply not valid as more for-profit organizations get into the mix. It is simply a matter of finding which approaches to open source fit best.

I wish they had tested open source .NET apps against open source non .NET apps. You really can't run sharepoint on public sites very easily or cheaply. There are a number of open source .NET portals they could have tested including
DotNetNuke http://www.dotnetnuke.com/ VB.NET
Rainbow Portal http://www.rainbowportal.net/ C#
or my favorite
mojoPortal http://www.mojoportal.com/ C# and also can run on linux with Mono

Windows/IIS will never compete in the $20/month free PHP package market, so it's not really worth bothering about.

That might have been true a few years ago but not now. Have a look at the Windows (and Linux) offerings, including SQL Server, at JodoHost. I'm not connected with them other than as a happy customer. There are plenty of bad Windows hosting companies out there but there are also good ones with prices pretty much the same as LAMP.

I've done a few spare time projects for non-profits. Previously my only realistic choice for these was PHP / MySQL mostly because of hosting and tool costs but my latest project uses .NET / C# / SQL Server. With low cost IIS hosting, versions of Visual Studio and SQL Server that are either free or low cost, the features of ASP.NET 2 and DotNetNuke, I probably won't be returning to LAMP any time soon.

Anytime I hear people talk about MS and open source, they speak of it as one vs the other, when in fact there is a lot of good open source written for MS platforms. Two of my favorites (both are BSD licensed) are:

http://dotnetnuke.com/

http://listring.com/

I care, but unfortunately certain browser developers don't give a rat's ass, so attempting to get a page to render perfectly in ALL major browsers without being ultra-conservative and without having to rely on browser hacks like quirks mode or conditional comments is not an easy task.

Furthermore, many open source projects generate HTML output that is so far from compliant that it's easier to just give up and rely on quirks and conditional comments to make things work, in comparison to spending the many man-weeks it would take to fix rendering problem of the various modules and plugins one would often use in conjunction with those projects.

DotNetNuke Growing very quickly, high quality, well managed and well documented.

If you want a good open source CMS on the microsoft platform (boo hiss from the /. crowd right?) check out http://www.dotnetnuke.com/

DotNetNuke Growing very quickly, high quality, well managed and well documented.

Let's see.

From DotNetNuke Introduction
"DotNetNuke is built on a Microsoft ASP.NET (VB.NET) platform."

From TFA:
"It's hard being an open source project on the Microsoft platform. Because no matter how hard you try to exemplify true open source ideals, you will not get any respect from the non-Microsoft community."

Like duh, if I cannot run your software, I can't bloody well form an opinion now, can I? And whining like a three year old that you don't get no respek isn't helping either.

Luser.

I'd say that some cases of Open Source on Windows are genuinely good, and others aren't so much. When it's open source that can run on Windows, I say "yay!". When it's open source that requires Windows, I balk.

Part of the philosophy is to put choice into the hands of each individual. I give a lot more credence to OSS that can run on multiple platforms. Sure, you can run .NET projects on Mono or the like - but that's a hoop you have to jump through. You can't be truly confident in the success you'll have, either.

When a project requires you to use closed source software to ensure its functioning, it's virility as an open source program is questionable. Sure, the source is available - but it's dependant on something that is closed. There's no guarantee that the framework upon which it is built won't change, and if it does change then what? Open source programs that are built upon closed source interfaces and systems can do nothing but hope that the next version of said closed source program will continue functioning the way its previous versions have. And they're given no guarantee whatsoever.

I still think it's great that projects like DotNetNuke release their stuff as open source. I just wonder why - why do they choose to build it upon something closed source? It's not as if .NET is intrinsically better than other development options. I mean, DotNetNuke is written in VB.NET - even if I were to develop in .NET, this wouldn't be my first choice. Regardless, I'd be hesitant to choose something that is so heavily tied to a closed source system.

The replacement for MSDE, SQL Express does not have a governor. Its limited to a single CPU, 1GB RAM, 4GB maximum db size so, as others have said, the free Oracle product looks to be an answer to this.

SQL Express is pretty good for many small websites, especially for DotNetNuke sites or other ASP.NET stuff.

Or perhaps a simple DotNetNuke skin? ...

My favourite open source CMS is DotNetNuke

For DotNetNuke.

IMHO, the best open source content management system.

If you want to see open source Windows software, just check out DotNetNuke. It started as some Microsoft toolkit, and it's now a fully functional portal solution with an enthusiastic user base. Open source, GPL, the whole bit.

I've been using PostNuke for a while and I love it, but I recently found out about a .Net based, open source CMS called DotNetNuke . I think it is a bit more streamlined and easier to administer than PostNuke, plus my background is in asp, so it is a lot easier for me to write modules. One downside is that the current version only works with SQL Server, but the next version (supposedly due very soon) will support other DBs. It will also be skinnalble. There are also quite a few modules available for it, including a great photo gallery called TTT Gallery .

If you don't like PHPNuke, you probably won't like DotNetNuke, but I use it and it's decent. One feature I haven't seen elsewhere is the ability to do multiple portals with one instance. In other words mom, dad, and your dog can all have a site on one hosting account. It is in it's infancy, though.