NOFv11 not ready for prime time

[Peter Eisenburger]

Ken Adam wrote:
> Boris,
> I've had the "damaged objects" message many times.
> I now keep an unused Masterborder copy of every masterborder that I use, so
> I can restore it quickly (and immediately make a new copy)
> (I'm using semantic XHTML,

I would say that's what's not ready for prime time.

Though, I cannot say the use of Semantic XHTMl is the reason for your
problems. But my advice is to stay away from it until a few releases
later...

Peter


so it isn't a "fixed layout" issue)
>
> Most often happens on switching from Site view to page view, but I can't
> spot anything else that is common
>
> Ken
>
>

[Steve Karr]

I remember when it was announced that IBM bought a stake in NetObjects and I
thought "that's a good sign." Then whithin a year or so, NetObjects
announced they were going to cease- that' when Website Pros bought them. I
am a pro web developer that has used NOF exclusively since version 1. I live
in fear that this tool will one day stop being developed! I have become
extremely comfortable and efficient with it and do not want to start over
with Dreamweaver.

-Steve

------------------------------
Steve Karr
steve@<nospam>stevekarr.com
www.stevekarr.com
Phone: 616.364.7493
Fax: 616.364.7318
"Peter Eisenburger" <peter@eisenburger.de> wrote in message
news:gmhvud$hos2@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
> Boris wrote:
>> Thanks for the insight. Hard to makeup my mind on what this news means.
>> I agree with Mark on the telltale signs. Being in the software industry,
>> I notice that as soon as a company is sold and taken over by others, if
>> the original creators are not part of the team, usually things go down
>> hill.
>
> The bigger company of the merger is former WSP. NOF is their product which
> they orginally bought from NetObjects, Inc.
>
>> Especially if the product is just a minor part of the company and really
>> not a huge money-maker. In NOF if they are only making $3+ million on
>> it, would it be worthwhile doing much R&D on it? Be lucky if they spend
>> a $200,000 on it. Also not listening or monitoring users? Sounds like
>> the end could be near.
>
> As I said, they use NetObjects Technology as the basis for their main
> business, "do-it-for-me" web site design. They have to further develop
> their NetObjects technology to meet web standards.
>
> Or else they would have to buy thousands of Dreamweaver licenses. Which
> also means they would have to change their established workflow.
>
> On the other hand, they don't need to package the software and retail it.
> In my opinion it's an nice-to-have additional business. And the user-basis
> of NOF ist still huge.
>
> And the operating income of Web.com is not that great they would afford to
> cancel any additional revenue. Don't underestimate 3 million.
>
> Well, that's my thoughts being a close observer of this product and it's
> vendors since 1996.
>
> Peter
>
>> Once gage would be to see if nPower for v11 is ever released.
>>
>> Ok, so where is the grass greener ?
>>
>>
>> "Peter Eisenburger" <peter@eisenburger.de> wrote in message
>> news:gmh92r$e3c2@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>>> Web.com is just the new name of Website Pros (WSP). WSP bought the
>>> former Web.com and took their name also.
>>>
>>> Web.com will release their annual report 2008 in the next days. I guess
>>> they're busy with preparing it and with the merger (which I didn't
>>> favour personally).
>>>
>>> I can't imagine NOF will fade away because Web.com relies on this
>>> product with their design work (their main business). They depend on
>>> perpetual development of the software, and meeting web standards also.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, as far as I can read from the numbers, they maybe
>>> don't earn much money with distributing NOF as a software product. Sales
>>> are slightly going down over the years.
>>>
>>> Read here:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web.com
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetObje...cts_Fusion_now
>>> and the Annual reports referenced there.
>>>
>>> I am also surprised they don't mention NOF on their web site. I guess
>>> they just don't want their customers to build sites on their own but
>>> sell site design to the end-customer.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> Mark said:
>>>>> No one from tech support or NOF is responding to tickets I've
>>>>> submitted or calls I've made many times over so I doubt they're
>>>>> trolling the boards looking to help. I'm new to NOF11, I bought this
>>>>> software to build my own site for a business my wife and I are
>>>>> opening - I thought it would save me time and money.
>>>>>
>>>>> For practice I built a site for my friends business during which I've
>>>>> found several bugs with catalogs that I've logged without reply. I've
>>>>> worked in software QA for the past 10 years and I've seen this with
>>>>> startups before - just before a company tanks it kills all extraneous
>>>>> expenses like tech support yet keeps sales up and running until the
>>>>> 11th hour. I hope people from the company are reading this to prove
>>>>> me wrong but after I called their main office and received the
>>>>> endless phone transfer regarding support without a resolution I think
>>>>> this is the case. Maybe they'll be bought by a competitor but in that
>>>>> case this will be turned into a legacy product; in either case
>>>>> current owners will lose support.
>>>> I did a little checking around based on your comments about Netobjects
>>>> disappearing; I can't find any announcements or other about them. But,
>>>> using some of the past links I had stored for them, some of them now
>>>> redirect to web.com, which they didn't used to. Web.com I guess is the
>>>> actual owner (located in Georgia, US) so perhaps they are reorganizing
>>>> and pulling in rather than anything more serious. websitepros no
>>>> longer references them I did notice, unless I just missed it; they seem
>>>> to have downsized too. None of the sites I tried are carrying "About"
>>>> links anymore either; another sign of change, FWIW.
>>>> If anything, I imagine support would continue, at least in the form
>>>> of forums and newsgroups so it wouldn't disappear entirely if you were
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Twayne
>>>>
>>

[Peter Eisenburger]

Steve Karr <steve@ wrote:
> I remember when it was announced that IBM bought a stake in NetObjects

that was in April 1997

> and I
> thought "that's a good sign." Then whithin a year or so, NetObjects
> announced they were going to cease-

that was in September 2001

Peter

that' when Website Pros bought them. I
> am a pro web developer that has used NOF exclusively since version 1. I live
> in fear that this tool will one day stop being developed! I have become
> extremely comfortable and efficient with it and do not want to start over
> with Dreamweaver.
>
> -Steve
>
> ------------------------------
> Steve Karr
> steve@<nospam>stevekarr.com
> www.stevekarr.com
> Phone: 616.364.7493
> Fax: 616.364.7318
> "Peter Eisenburger" <peter@eisenburger.de> wrote in message
> news:gmhvud$hos2@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>> Boris wrote:
>>> Thanks for the insight. Hard to makeup my mind on what this news means.
>>> I agree with Mark on the telltale signs. Being in the software industry,
>>> I notice that as soon as a company is sold and taken over by others, if
>>> the original creators are not part of the team, usually things go down
>>> hill.
>> The bigger company of the merger is former WSP. NOF is their product which
>> they orginally bought from NetObjects, Inc.
>>
>>> Especially if the product is just a minor part of the company and really
>>> not a huge money-maker. In NOF if they are only making $3+ million on
>>> it, would it be worthwhile doing much R&D on it? Be lucky if they spend
>>> a $200,000 on it. Also not listening or monitoring users? Sounds like
>>> the end could be near.
>> As I said, they use NetObjects Technology as the basis for their main
>> business, "do-it-for-me" web site design. They have to further develop
>> their NetObjects technology to meet web standards.
>>
>> Or else they would have to buy thousands of Dreamweaver licenses. Which
>> also means they would have to change their established workflow.
>>
>> On the other hand, they don't need to package the software and retail it.
>> In my opinion it's an nice-to-have additional business. And the user-basis
>> of NOF ist still huge.
>>
>> And the operating income of Web.com is not that great they would afford to
>> cancel any additional revenue. Don't underestimate 3 million.
>>
>> Well, that's my thoughts being a close observer of this product and it's
>> vendors since 1996.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>> Once gage would be to see if nPower for v11 is ever released.
>>>
>>> Ok, so where is the grass greener ?
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Eisenburger" <peter@eisenburger.de> wrote in message
>>> news:gmh92r$e3c2@flsun90netnews01.netobjects.com.. .
>>>> Web.com is just the new name of Website Pros (WSP). WSP bought the
>>>> former Web.com and took their name also.
>>>>
>>>> Web.com will release their annual report 2008 in the next days. I guess
>>>> they're busy with preparing it and with the merger (which I didn't
>>>> favour personally).
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine NOF will fade away because Web.com relies on this
>>>> product with their design work (their main business). They depend on
>>>> perpetual development of the software, and meeting web standards also.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, as far as I can read from the numbers, they maybe
>>>> don't earn much money with distributing NOF as a software product. Sales
>>>> are slightly going down over the years.
>>>>
>>>> Read here:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web.com
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetObje...cts_Fusion_now
>>>> and the Annual reports referenced there.
>>>>
>>>> I am also surprised they don't mention NOF on their web site. I guess
>>>> they just don't want their customers to build sites on their own but
>>>> sell site design to the end-customer.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>> Mark said:
>>>>>> No one from tech support or NOF is responding to tickets I've
>>>>>> submitted or calls I've made many times over so I doubt they're
>>>>>> trolling the boards looking to help. I'm new to NOF11, I bought this
>>>>>> software to build my own site for a business my wife and I are
>>>>>> opening - I thought it would save me time and money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For practice I built a site for my friends business during which I've
>>>>>> found several bugs with catalogs that I've logged without reply. I've
>>>>>> worked in software QA for the past 10 years and I've seen this with
>>>>>> startups before - just before a company tanks it kills all extraneous
>>>>>> expenses like tech support yet keeps sales up and running until the
>>>>>> 11th hour. I hope people from the company are reading this to prove
>>>>>> me wrong but after I called their main office and received the
>>>>>> endless phone transfer regarding support without a resolution I think
>>>>>> this is the case. Maybe they'll be bought by a competitor but in that
>>>>>> case this will be turned into a legacy product; in either case
>>>>>> current owners will lose support.
>>>>> I did a little checking around based on your comments about Netobjects
>>>>> disappearing; I can't find any announcements or other about them. But,
>>>>> using some of the past links I had stored for them, some of them now
>>>>> redirect to web.com, which they didn't used to. Web.com I guess is the
>>>>> actual owner (located in Georgia, US) so perhaps they are reorganizing
>>>>> and pulling in rather than anything more serious. websitepros no
>>>>> longer references them I did notice, unless I just missed it; they seem
>>>>> to have downsized too. None of the sites I tried are carrying "About"
>>>>> links anymore either; another sign of change, FWIW.
>>>>> If anything, I imagine support would continue, at least in the form
>>>>> of forums and newsgroups so it wouldn't disappear entirely if you were
>>>>> right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Twayne
>>>>>
>
>

[Twayne]

Mike Coombes wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>> Curious: NOW you have chosen to speak for Charles! Don't you
>> consider him capable of speaking for himself?
>> ...closed mind...people skills...bad
>> netiquette...sarcasm...Common Etiquette...credibility...closed
>> mind...huge disappointment.
> Interesting. I never realised it was possible to get your own head
> quite that far up your backside.
>
> Twayne, if you're the only person who took offence, don't you think
> it's maybe just slightly possible that it's not everyone else that's
> in the wrong?

On a newsgroup? No. Common sense always dictates solutions for me
whenever I find someting seemingly off kilter.
There is no way of knowing I'm the only person just as t here is no
way of knowing the overall attitude of any but a clique of friends of
the poster. You may not realize it, but you're intimating there is a
"we" of the newsgroup, which there is not. tinw.

[Twayne]

Charles Edmonds wrote:

>
> I believe that if you check other posts in this newsgroup that you'd
> find that any time I made a reference to what the group does, it is
> usually in the context of "Most of us around here" or something to
> that effect.

In other words, you only speak for "most" of the group when you say
"most of us around here"?

See, this is almost precisely what I was talking about. For some "we"
means some unnamed company which they ass u me everyone knows, including
those who have never visited this group before. But now you're alluding
to it meaning the majority of the newsgroup.
And to top it all off, you think I should go back through a bunch of
old posts to see if I can tell what you mean and infer by "we"? No,
that's unacceptable and fraught with the possibility of many differing
interpretations. On a newsgroup, tinw.

Being a hobbyist in sociology, I find the reaction to the proper use of
"we" to have been pretty interesting, actually. There are apparentl a
few egos here that feel their own meaning of a word is that which the
entire community should use, and that is interestingly incorrect in
attitude. Clarity and conciseness of the more intelligent minds usually
generates people who are thoughtful about such matters and who wish to
be amenable to the largest cross section of any population. But here in
this case, it seems to be an indication of power and almost necessity
that some get to use their own meanings as opposed to, well, ... .

I've no intention to participating in a flame war, which this would
already be on most groups were I on your side of the fence, but I will
for awhile respond to apparently thoughtful posts. Apparently the
anonymity of the 'net works a bit overtime on some of the folk here.

Oh, and just to keep this on topic, IMO NOFv11 is definitely ready for
prime time. As ready as many of its competition, anyway. <g>.
>
> That obviously gives you the ability to opt out of that reference<g>.

I think I answered this before, but, I don't see it as an "ability" to
opt out of anything I never opted into. Perhaps you're talking about
stating an opinion; no problem IMO. I have that ability should I care
to exercise it, but I don't care to.
You're right though, it's not much to worry about. And I don't.

Cheers,

Twayne



>
> Anyway, no need to worry about it.
>
> :-)
>
> Take care,
>
> Charles

[Twayne]

Garret Mott wrote:
> And here I was figuring it was the royal "we". You mean you *don't*
> have a mouse in your pocket? <vbg>

lol, isnt' it actually a frog? One that if you kiss it will become the
most beautiful woman ever seen and who will marry the kisser and serve
him for the rest of his life?
Only "he" was 72 years old and thought a talking frog was better to
have than a pretty girl at his age?

:^}

Twayne


>
> Garret
>
> "Charles Edmonds" <cje_ByteMeSpammers_@lansrad.com> wrote in message
> news:1bf5a1s1ttwew.r1behzll9rf4.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:52:23 -0500, Twayne wrote:
>>
>>>> We do a lot of work with NOF11...
>>>
>>> Please do NOT use the word "we" as you just
>>> did. That includes ME and I forbid anyone to
>>> speak for me! Or if it means you and another
>>> user, company, whatever, please say so! Your
>>> current grammar speaks for the entire group and
>>> you cannot do that.
>>
>>
>> Twayne,
>>
>> As others have pointed out, in this case YOU are not a part of WE<g>.
>>
>> I don't know what YOU or the GROUP do and would not presume to speak
>> so broadly on your collective behalf's.
>>
>> "We" (as in the correct reference to "our company") do as stated.
>>
>> I believe that if you check other posts in this newsgroup that you'd
>> find that any time I made a reference to what the group does, it is
>> usually in the context of "Most of us around here" or something to
>> that effect. That obviously gives you the ability to opt out of that
>> reference<g>.
>>
>> Anyway, no need to worry about it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Charles Edmonds
>> cje_ByteMeSpammers_@lansrad.com (remove the _ByteMeSpammers_ to
>> email me) www.ezchangelog.com - "Free ChangeLog software to manage
>> your projects!" www.setupcast.com - "A revolutionary new publishing
>> system for software developers - enhanced for SetupBuilder users!"
>> www.pagesnip.com - "Print and Save the Web, just the way you want
>> it!" www.clarionproseries.com - "Serious imaging tools for Clarion
>> Developers" www.ezround.com - "Round Corner HTML tables with
>> matching Banners, Buttons and Forms!"
>> www.lansrad.com - "Intelligent Solutions for Universal Problems"
>> www.fotokiss.com - "World's Best Auction Photo Editor"
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Twayne]

Mark wrote:
....
>>
>>
> Twayne,
>
> Thanks for the further investigation and following up. I'm sure there
> will continue to be newsgroups and forums but I've found that unless
> you're a forum regular that your questions seem to get overlooked. I
> am the mark the person commented on "mark twayne" who attempted to
> ask for help on the same versioning issue you were having; my
> question was ignored. For people like me losing support is an end
> game as I do not create web sites for a living but will be creating
> and maintaining my own.
> Take care
>
> Mark

I've noticed that, too, but in the case of a couple of professional
groups I belong to, the attitude about newbies tends to soften when a
lot of fresh participants start showing up. I speak mainly of the VB
classic and VB NET groups, both of which I use.
Newsgroups take on a culture of their own and that culture changes
over time as with most any generalized population. I've found quite a
few groups that I consider much better resources than their mfg tech
support areas for problem resolution of the "use" kind. Corel's groups
are a good example, IMO.
But for some reason the forums don't work that way. Most of my forum
experience finds almost all newbies participating and very few of the
"guru" types participating. I think because they more often opt for the
faster, more functional newsgroup setups, even when they're not
moderated.
What is lost though is the insight company tech support can often
provide. Often that wheel has to be reinvented all over again.

Cheers,

Twayne

[Gary Dumbleton]

Twayne,

Why keep on about this when it has been explained and accepted. I really
do not know what you point is.

Because of you, this thread has lost it's purpose, to help and comment
on NOF not to hijack the thread on such childish matters. Of course We
means his company, why don't you leave it at that!

I hope that this is closed.

Gary

Twayne wrote:
> Charles Edmonds wrote:
>
>> I believe that if you check other posts in this newsgroup that you'd
>> find that any time I made a reference to what the group does, it is
>> usually in the context of "Most of us around here" or something to
>> that effect.
>
> In other words, you only speak for "most" of the group when you say
> "most of us around here"?
>
> See, this is almost precisely what I was talking about. For some "we"
> means some unnamed company which they ass u me everyone knows, including
> those who have never visited this group before. But now you're alluding
> to it meaning the majority of the newsgroup.
> And to top it all off, you think I should go back through a bunch of
> old posts to see if I can tell what you mean and infer by "we"? No,
> that's unacceptable and fraught with the possibility of many differing
> interpretations. On a newsgroup, tinw.
>
> Being a hobbyist in sociology, I find the reaction to the proper use of
> "we" to have been pretty interesting, actually. There are apparentl a
> few egos here that feel their own meaning of a word is that which the
> entire community should use, and that is interestingly incorrect in
> attitude. Clarity and conciseness of the more intelligent minds usually
> generates people who are thoughtful about such matters and who wish to
> be amenable to the largest cross section of any population. But here in
> this case, it seems to be an indication of power and almost necessity
> that some get to use their own meanings as opposed to, well, ... .
>
> I've no intention to participating in a flame war, which this would
> already be on most groups were I on your side of the fence, but I will
> for awhile respond to apparently thoughtful posts. Apparently the
> anonymity of the 'net works a bit overtime on some of the folk here.
>
> Oh, and just to keep this on topic, IMO NOFv11 is definitely ready for
> prime time. As ready as many of its competition, anyway. <g>.
>> That obviously gives you the ability to opt out of that reference<g>.
>
> I think I answered this before, but, I don't see it as an "ability" to
> opt out of anything I never opted into. Perhaps you're talking about
> stating an opinion; no problem IMO. I have that ability should I care
> to exercise it, but I don't care to.
> You're right though, it's not much to worry about. And I don't.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Twayne
>
>
>
>> Anyway, no need to worry about it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Take care,
>>
>> Charles
>
>
>

[Twayne]

Gary Dumbleton wrote:
> Twayne,
>
> Why keep on about this when it has been explained and accepted. I
> really do not know what you point is.
>
> Because of you, this thread has lost it's purpose, to help and comment
> on NOF not to hijack the thread on such childish matters. Of course We
> means his company, why don't you leave it at that!
>
> I hope that this is closed.

It would be closed if people didn't keep harping about it. "We" does
not indicate a company; "we" indicates the collective group around the
speaker at the time he spoke. Try a better dictionary while I stand on
what I initially said. The ONLY reason it's still being perpetuated is
due to the comments of others.

Because of "others", a post to one specific person has been responded to
by a large number of people who were not addressed but felt it necessary
to stick their egos, I mean, noses into it. You get what you ask for
sometimes. Think about it.


>
> Gary
>
> Twayne wrote:
>> Charles Edmonds wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that if you check other posts in this newsgroup that you'd
>>> find that any time I made a reference to what the group does, it is
>>> usually in the context of "Most of us around here" or something to
>>> that effect.
>>
>> In other words, you only speak for "most" of the group when you say
>> "most of us around here"?
>>
>> See, this is almost precisely what I was talking about. For some
>> "we" means some unnamed company which they ass u me everyone knows,
>> including those who have never visited this group before. But now
>> you're alluding to it meaning the majority of the newsgroup.
>> And to top it all off, you think I should go back through a bunch
>> of old posts to see if I can tell what you mean and infer by "we"?
>> No, that's unacceptable and fraught with the possibility of many
>> differing interpretations. On a newsgroup, tinw.
>>
>> Being a hobbyist in sociology, I find the reaction to the proper use
>> of "we" to have been pretty interesting, actually. There are
>> apparentl a few egos here that feel their own meaning of a word is
>> that which the entire community should use, and that is
>> interestingly incorrect in attitude. Clarity and conciseness of the
>> more intelligent minds usually generates people who are thoughtful
>> about such matters and who wish to be amenable to the largest cross
>> section of any population. But here in this case, it seems to be an
>> indication of power and almost necessity that some get to use their
>> own meanings as opposed to, well, ... . I've no intention to
>> participating in a flame war, which this would
>> already be on most groups were I on your side of the fence, but I
>> will for awhile respond to apparently thoughtful posts. Apparently
>> the anonymity of the 'net works a bit overtime on some of the folk
>> here. Oh, and just to keep this on topic, IMO NOFv11 is definitely
>> ready
>> for prime time. As ready as many of its competition, anyway. <g>.
>>> That obviously gives you the ability to opt out of that
>>> reference<g>.
>>
>> I think I answered this before, but, I don't see it as an "ability"
>> to opt out of anything I never opted into. Perhaps you're talking
>> about stating an opinion; no problem IMO. I have that ability
>> should I care to exercise it, but I don't care to.
>> You're right though, it's not much to worry about. And I don't.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Twayne
>>
>>
>>
>>> Anyway, no need to worry about it.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>>
>>> Charles

[Mike Coombes]

Twayne wrote:
> You may not realize it, but you're intimating there is a
> "we" of the newsgroup, which there is not. tinw.
>
>
It's just semantics, we obviously make different assumptions. I tend to
use 'we' when I mean my company, as in 'us over here' and read 'we' as
'them over there', as opposed to 'everyone' which is a blanket term.

But meh. If I said 'Just me and nobody else' somebody would probably
find something wrong with it if they tried hard enough. At least, that's
what we think