+1-888-365-2779
Try Now
More in this section

Forums / General Discussions / Sitefinity 4.0 RC

Sitefinity 4.0 RC

183 posts, 0 answered
  1. Gabe Sumner
    Gabe Sumner avatar
    440 posts
    Registered:
    09 Sep 2007
    16 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Bryan: Anyhow, there are rumblings of the RC release date being pushed back (RE @Alison Gilles).  I am in the same boat here.  Do we know when the RC will be released?  I need to know because I too am trying to launch a project within the next couple of weeks.

    The RC release is scheduled for this Thursday.

    Phil:  I hope all this works out in the end, I hope that I can find some clients that are ok with starting at $1,999 but I won't be rushing to upgrade any of my current sites to 4.0 as I can't go backwards in features (i.e. no newsletter functionality). I'll just have to cross my fingers that no major security holes are found after SF3.x is no longer supported.

    Phil, thanks for the kind words.  Regardless of your choice, we're not going to abandon you or any of our customers.  Beyond that, I can only encourage you to contact sales@sitefinity.com and tell them your challenges.  My role here is to broadly communicate our position and help facilitate a constructive conversation.  Sales is empowered to help you discover solutions that are specific to your needs.

    Brad:  I understand that Analytics and perhaps a few other features will be added to various editions- is there anyway that the concurrent users will change, or are they completely cemented?

    Nothing is set in stone.  We've already made some compromises.  Constructive feedback, like this helps.  I would encourage everyone with concerns to contact sales@sitefinity.com and tell them your challenges.

    Neil: When the final release is hear how will the login required for contentEditable elements within the browser affect concurrent logins.

    I'm not sure I understand.  Can you provide more information?

    bleutiger:  Could you chime in and just say "got the survey" or "no survey here"...I am just curious.  And for Telerik.  I am not trying to be a jerk here.  I am genuinely curious how many people got this survey and I would love to have Telerik publish the results of the survey as well

    I wasn't involved with the survey and I don't know all the details.  However, in general we conduct a lot of surveys and often use only a sampling of our customers to avoid bothering everyone constantly.  This is a fairly common technique.  

    Beyond that, I'm not really sure where you're going with this.  Are you suggesting that your demographic was under-represented?  Or that our sampling wasn't big enough?  Or that we worded the email or survey poorly?  Or misread the results?  Or...

    Hopefully you can understand why this isn't a conversation we're going to have in public.  We trust our employees and nothing good will come from me trying to dig up information about a survey conducted months ago.  The new pricing is based on a lot research and a lot of factors.  The survey is only part of this.  

    Gabe Sumner
    Telerik | Sitefinity CMS
  2. IT
    IT avatar
    52 posts
    Registered:
    30 Sep 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    The good:

    We're a small public two-year college. Very happy with the product, but in desperate need of the granular permissions. After picking my jaw off the floor for what I'd have to pay after expecting it to "just be there" in 4.0, I'm happy to hear (from what I've read in this thread anyways) that the granular permissions will be in there. This is the number one feature we needed to see in 4.0. I guess that's the good news.

    The price increase wasn't a surprise. The massive increase to get a version with similar functionality was. The product is worth more than $899. It's arguably worth $7999. But that brings new challenges in our organization: selling administration on the value, have to do competitive bidding, need to look at our campus agreement vis-a-vis Microsoft Sharepoint, and so forth. In reading the threads, it seems a lot of .edu's recognized the value in your product. However, many will share similar challenges in getting the product purchased.

    Now for the bad:

    "Any user belonging to the Backend Users role or to the Administrators role who authenticates within a Sitefinity 4.0 website is counted towards the concurrent user limitation. It doesn’t matter whether this backend or admin user authenticates by logging into the public facing website, backend administration area, or a third-party application using our RESTful Web Service APIs. That user is removed from the concurrent users count when he personally logs off, he is forcefully logged off by an administrator, or his session expires. The session expiration time can be controlled from the configuration settings of Sitefinity."

    This is a major turn-off. One of our big goals with 4.0 was the granular permissions so that our staff could take ownership of pages and do some self-management. While they wouldn't be in the CMS very frequently, a large chunk of our staff is authenticated to the portal to get to "intranet" type functionality (single sign-on to online teaching, grades, email, etc.) Having to tell them that they need to log out constantly, "kick them out", or create separate logins for CMS functionality are all bad options. This "feature" is nothing but a hoop for people to jump through. Very disappointing. I'm not sure what the goal of limiting concurrency was, but it seems that it could have been implemented in a more friendly way.

    If the system could actively monitor concurrent users in the CMS portion of the site, I think we could work with the new concurrency limitations. However, we know that it is nearly impossible to monitor this in a web environment, so I find this limitation disappointing since it means creating yet another login for end-users.

    Load balancing - I think it is ridiculous to make the assumption that "only the big players" would have load balancing. Our servers are largely virtualized now. It's not a huge investment in spinning up a second web server - the infrastructure cost is already accounted for. We have two up because it's nice to fail over gracefully during upgrades, service pack installs, and the occasional web.config change (at least we'll have less of that in SF 4.0 it seems). I can explain the value to my boss in paying $1999 instead of $899, but $7999 if we want to load balance?

    Oh, and did I mention how annoyed our users will be with the additional login issues presented by the concurrent user limit? With any luck someone will build some kind of widget to help out with this. Frustrating!


  3. IT
    IT avatar
    52 posts
    Registered:
    30 Sep 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Regarding concurrency and the survey... I don't recall being part of the survey, but I would like to see how that was worded.

    If I was asked how many concurrent users I need to support, I would have guessed around 5-10 at any given moment would be sufficient. That represents 3-5% of the number of users who can actually access the CMS (most our users are responsible for just a page or two). Due to the infrequency of updates, a small concurrent number would be fine for our organization.

    Now, when answering that question, it wouldn't have dawned on me that *anyone* logged in (to the public side) would be counted against the CMS user limit. I wonder if others thought the same thing. If that were the question, I would say 50-200 depending on how it is monitored. It is not at all uncommon for a large percentage of our staff to log in first thing, check email, use other authenticated apps via our portal, and minimize the browser or open a new tab and begin their day. In 4.0, I either kick people out (forcing them to re-authenticate all the time - completely unacceptable for end users) or make everyone have a second login just for CMS (now I'm managing twice the number of accounts - unacceptable to me and the end users). 

    I'm having a really tough time with this - we get so much flak anytime people have to have another login to remember, and the ease of an "edit this page" link on every page that CMS users could access was a huge selling point. And the jump for 10 concurrent to unlimited with no in-between? Yikes! You label the "Professional" license as "For comprehensive websites and portals of large organizations." But if you're using this as a portal, people (many of which might very well have some level of CMS access) would be logged in all the time. Is 10 really acceptable for the portal of a large organization?

    I trust you'll shake out some of this before the product (hopefully) releases January 14, 2011. I've been so happy with the product and so looking forward to the new release, but the expectations weren't set properly and you've taken a lot of wind out of our sails.
  4. MB
    MB avatar
    302 posts
    Registered:
    09 Jan 2005
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Stormy:  And the jump for 10 concurrent to unlimited with no in-between?

    Yes, this would not have occurred to me - "Concurrent CMS Users" - to me, that means logged into the Admin side of the site.

    However, if this is going to apply to users logged in via the public side (presumably only for specific Admin type roles) then there really needs to be another option for managing this, and adding user counts to any version.

    Something more akin the the MS Server-App approach of CAL packages, so you can increase the concurrent "CMS" user count for a site, in say 5 or 10 user packs, by applying a key.

    Features and Modules should separate the versions, not basics such as user-access and security.
  5. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe...

    bleutiger:  Could you chime in and just say "got the survey" or "no survey here"...I am just curious.  And for Telerik.  I am not trying to be a jerk here.  I am genuinely curious how many people got this survey and I would love to have Telerik publish the results of the survey as well

    I wasn't involved with the survey and I don't know all the details.  However, in general we conduct a lot of surveys and often use only a sampling of our customers to avoid bothering everyone constantly.  This is a fairly common technique.  

    Beyond that, I'm not really sure where you're going with this.  Are you suggesting that your demographic was under-represented?  Or that our sampling wasn't big enough?  Or that we worded the email or survey poorly?  Or misread the results?  Or...

    Hopefully you can understand why this isn't a conversation we're going to have in public.  We trust our employees and nothing good will come from me trying to dig up information about a survey conducted months ago.  The new pricing is based on a lot research and a lot of factors.  The survey is only part of this.  

    Where am I going with this?  Well quite frankly I was genuinly curious to see if anyone who is posting to this forum ever recieved a survey....It does not appear that anyone did.

    Do I feel as if my particular demographic was under represented?  As a school district webmaster and as one of several posting to this forum I would have to say that yes I feel that OUR particualr section of the market was under represented if none of us ever recieved the survey or had our opinion asked.  Although I did respond to the post concerning the community edition being discontinued a couple of times. 

    That being said I  am not accusing Telerik of doing it on purpose or maliciously...perhaps you were unaware of the large number of k-12 institutions that were looking at your product as a possible web solution. 

    Do I feel that the sampling was too small?...perhaps but that is based solely on the number of people that are upset according to their posts in the forums and on twitter and other places.  And as far as bothering us.  I doubt anyone would have felt bothered by a survey that could possibly shape the pricing stucture and editions of the next version of your software.  We would all leap at the chance tpo give our opinions...lol...just look at this forum.

    Since I did not see the email or survey or what ever it was I doubt it was worded poorly or incorrectly.

    As far as discussing this....isn't that what we are doing now.  Again I am not trying to be a jerk and I have laid out my case both on these forums and in my conversations with Sales and I am willing to see what happens although my belief is that not much more than what has already changed wil change which doesn't help OUR...and other school districts and government agencies that are designed similarly... particular issues.

    I am still hoping...and praying a little, considering my district chose this product based on my recomendation...that there is some progress in the concurrent user area or in the Educational Licence area but my hopes are dwindling fast.

    To be honest I hope that I can convince my people to stay with Sitefintiy but with no money in our budget and no hope of any more before the discounts expire that may not be possible.

    I am a firm believer that Sitefinity should have gone with a modular approach and release a core product with the ability to add features that you need at varying prices like my Quickbooks example in an earlier post.

    No harm no foul intended as I said...not trying to be a jerk just genuinely curious about the survey.
  6. Markus
    Markus avatar
    2763 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2005
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    The whole conversation here in the movies

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcvDgZI91SU


    Markus
  7. Frank
    Frank avatar
    4 posts
    Registered:
    15 Jun 2010
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hello,

    where can I download and test the 4.0 RC?

    kind regards
    Frank
  8. mattc
    mattc avatar
    105 posts
    Registered:
    11 Aug 2007
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi

    RC will be available tomorrow I believe.

    M
  9. Gabe Sumner
    Gabe Sumner avatar
    440 posts
    Registered:
    09 Sep 2007
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Stormy: I'm not sure what the goal of limiting concurrency was, but it seems that it could have been implemented in a more friendly way.

    The goal was to align each edition of Sitefinity with natural growth points for the web site.  The product scales as a web site's content management requirements become more demanding.

    As others have suggested, we discussed having a hard cap on the # of backend users.  However, that also creates challenges.  For example, it encourages account sharing.

    So...we decided to tie each edition of Sitefinity to real-world usage.  There can be an unlimited # of backend users, but each edition of Sitefinity is only built to engage with a % of them simulteously.  As a result, each edition of Sitefinity is tied very closely to how the CMS actually gets used in the organization.  A web site with lots of people simultaneously editing content is a demanding web site and an important organizational resource.  

    Stormy: I think it is ridiculous to make the assumption that "only the big players" would have load balancing.

    You've described your requirements as follows: dozens of simultaneous content editors, load balanced environments & granular permissions.  These are sophisticated requirements, which require sizable engineering & support resources to support.

    I respect your comments and appreciate your challenges, but hopefully you can see (from our perspective) why it's not trivial or easy to support your project.  That being said, you provided a lot of great feedback.  This helps a lot and I'll be sure to relay.

    bleutiger:  Again I am not trying to be a jerk and I have laid out my case both on these forums and in my conversations with Sales and I am willing to see what happens although my belief is that not much more than what has already changed wil change which doesn't help OUR...and other school districts and government agencies that are designed similarly... particular issues.

    I appreciate that you've communicated your challenges.  We're still having internal conversations based on all this feedback.  However, it's unlikely we'll see any huge sweeping changes to this pricing.

    Markus: The whole conversation here in the movies...

    :)

    Frank: where can I download and test the 4.0 RC?

    Tomorrow the RC will be available from the Accounts section of Sitefinity.com.

    Gabe Sumner
    Telerik | Sitefinity CMS
  10. Tod Madderra
    Tod Madderra avatar
    3 posts
    Registered:
    13 Aug 2009
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Gabe,

    I would strongly urge you to seek infrastructure consulting somewhere outside Telerik to get an accurate perspective on load balancing.  It is NOT a sophisticated strategy by any means, it is a REQUIREMENT of any business wishing to provide consistent web response.  Until someone steps up and characterizes this properly, I feel compelled to continue trying to get you to adjust your thinking. . 

    Level of visitation is NOT tied to the number of content providers you have.  We have 1 content provider, do not have millions of visitors constantly, but do experience surges that drive beyond the most powerful single server.  Simple and cost effective load balancing has been available since 2003 on MS Server 2003.  This is not new.

  11. Steve
    Steve avatar
    3037 posts
    Registered:
    03 Dec 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hey Gabe,
    "we decided to tie each edition of Sitefinity to real-world usage.  There can be an unlimited # of backend users, but each edition of Sitefinity is only built to engage with a % of them simulteously.  As a result, each edition of Sitefinity is tied very closely to how the CMS actually gets used"

    This is the problem...it's not simultaneous concurrent people editing, it's a % of them logged in anywhere to the site; that's the fundamental stumbling block for most of us in the concurrent user scenario.

    We want to give a bunch of people page editing access, but the fact that they wont be able to LOG IN to the site at all assuming 5 other people are logged in is crazy (obviously assuming standard).  Backend sure, that makes sense...user clicks Edit this Page on the site, tells them nope, too many other people are editing please try again...that's fine and probably expected behavior. 

    PLEASE consider making it only check when users enter \sitefinity or inline page editing...

    I think the pricing scale is fine, we all knew it was going up...and the discounts have helped our transition here.  FYI the educational discount does stack on the 50% off (so 60% total) right now if that helps anyone else.

    Steve
  12. KMac
    KMac avatar
    133 posts
    Registered:
    15 Dec 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Since I have the attention of every Sitefinity developer on the planet (and because I started this thread so feel I can change it's direction whenever I feel like it), I just wanted to let everyone know that we are currently looking for a full time developer who really knows Sitefinity (and all the other yada yada: ASP.net 4.0, C#, SQL Server 2008, plus if you have some design skills, we'll like you even more). Currently we are looking for someone local (e.g. Burlington, Ontario, Canada and surrounding areas, yes, even you Toronto). The nice thing about this job is that you can just simply play in the beautiful world that Telerik has concocted for us without having to worry about Sitefinity price increases or how granular the granularity is.

    Any one interested such utopian bliss can reach us by heading over to our website @ www.cubiclefugitive.com (any one responding to this thread with an "I'm interested in the position..." repsonse instead of emailing us will be ignored and/or ridiculed.

    Thank you for time. Now back to your regularly scheduled concurrent user/pricing debate.
  13. IT
    IT avatar
    52 posts
    Registered:
    30 Sep 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Gabe: "So...we decided to tie each edition of Sitefinity to real-world usage.  There can be an unlimited # of backend users, but each edition of Sitefinity is only built to engage with a % of them simulteously.  As a result, each edition of Sitefinity is tied very closely to how the CMS actually gets used in the organization.  A web site with lots of people simultaneously editing content is a demanding web site and an important organizational resource."

    I agree that's how it should work, but as it's been described, that's not the case. 

    Let me try to explain once more. We could have 70% of our staff set up as CMS users, but 99% of these people would use the CMS portion one time for ten minutes at the beginning of each semester. We have one or two people who are in the CMS for hours a day. Telerik is telling me that the 70% who sign in to the portal to get single-sign-on access to the rest of our organization who just so happen to edit one or two pages a couple times a year are "logged into the CMS simultaneously" and eating up licenses!?!?

    Look, if you want to talk about engaging a certain percentage simultaneously, I would hope you recognize that we should be talking simultaneously in the CMS (/sitefinity) portion of the site. Again, I understand the challenges of doing this kind of monitoring, but you've got a team of smart folks who could figure out something I'm sure.

    -Stormy.
  14. Richard
    Richard avatar
    24 posts
    Registered:
    25 Apr 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    We are an academic department at a university. Our web site does not generate any income. The pricing for 4.0 is a very unwelcome surprise and may require us to abandon the product. Given the hundreds of hours we've spent implementing Sitefinity this would be a disaster.

    1. Number of concurrent users. Your suggestions for developing workflows where users will quickly log in and out - won't work. Have you ever dealt with real world users? Once they are logged in they get distracted, cover the browser with other windows, etc., and stay logged in for hours. Telerik has about as many employees as my department - try running your site with a five or ten user limit and see how well that works.

    2. Training sessions. We need to hold Sitefinity training sessions. Typically each user has a workstation. They are all logged in at the same time. Oops, can't do that anymore.

    3. Academic discounts. Your academic discount is 10%. Compare that to Microsoft, who sells us a copy of Windows Server 2008 R2 for $85 (vs. about $700 on the open market).

    Suggestions:
    The pro version costs 4 times as much as the standard version. It should have 4 times as many concurrent users (20), not 2 times.

    Increase your academic discount to 50% (still way less than Microsoft or Adobe).
  15. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe or Telerik

    So I have been asked to throw this question into the mix.

    We have been discussing a strategy for our teachers to leverage blogging using Microsoft LiveWriter.  If our teacher are accessing their blogs using the WebLogAPI (hope I spelled that right) will they count against the concurrent user limitations in Standard and Pro?

  16. MB
    MB avatar
    302 posts
    Registered:
    09 Jan 2005
    17 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Richard: "Compare that to Microsoft, who sells us a copy of Windows Server 2008 R2 for $85 (vs. about $700 on the open market)."

    Not wishing to labour my earlier point (although of course, now I will) but MS server O/S and apps are a prime example of what I was referring to.

    You buy Windows Server, SBS, and back-office apps, of various versions, that are distinguished by their feature-sets.

    They each come with a minimal number of CALs, and you buy then add-ons for those, to ultilise the feature-set  you required for your specific workload demands.

    This allows MS to reduce the entry price of each version's feature-set, while deriving more revenue from those who make more use of each feature-set.

    I feel that users should be able to buy the version of Sitefinity which offers the feature-set which matches their application requirements (with an appropriate price gap) and then be allowed to tailor the use of that feature-set by purchasing usage add-on keys to match their intended use of that selected version.

    The 3 elements that Telerik seem to be focusing on controlling use of are:

    1. Concurrent CMS Users
    2. Site-Map Pages
    3. Concurrent content items

    Placing a low initial User, Page and Item  limit on ALL versions could perhaps allow Telerik to reduce the entry price to each version, and then customers could purchase useage licenses to match their needs... allowing those who need a feature of, say, the "Professional" version, but only have few admins, to justify the investment and match their budget. Similarly, it may be possible to even dial down the price of SBE even further to allow very small business or low-use sites to be justified, and expanded as required.
  17. Gabe Sumner
    Gabe Sumner avatar
    440 posts
    Registered:
    09 Sep 2007
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Richard:  Telerik has about as many employees as my department - try running your site with a five or ten user limit and see how well that works.

    Telerik would make whatever investment was required to enable us to get the job done.  If it's an important resource and it helps us be productive, it's worth it.  People and lost productivity cost a lot more than software.

    Richard: Academic discounts. Your academic discount is 10%. Compare that to Microsoft, who sells us a copy of Windows Server 2008 R2 for $85 (vs. about $700 on the open market).

    Richard: Increase your academic discount to 50% (still way less than Microsoft or Adobe)

    Currently you do have access to a 50% discount + an academic discount.  I doubt this will be extended indefinitly to academic organizations though.  Email sales@sitefinity.com to learn the details.  Beyond that, you've described to us your challenges.  It will be up to others to decide, long-term, if we want to engage with projects like this at the price point you're suggesting.  

    MB:  I feel that users should be able to buy the version of Sitefinity which offers...

    As I mentioned earlier, we're open to suggestions but it's unlikely there will be big changes to the pricing we've announced.  Based on your feedback, we've already made compromises.  It's also possible we might make more.  However, the sweeping modifications being proposed are unlikely to be implemented without extremely strong supporting evidence.  

    We can sympathize with the stories we're hearing here.  We've introduced a sizable change in pricing and it's bound to have some negative consequences.  For our part, the discounts are designed to help current customers get migrated to the 4.0 platform.  

    Beyond that, I would ask everyone to focus on key project challenges and not propose entirely new pricing models.  I'm more than willing to relay feedback internally, but there isn't much I can do with feedback that suggests an entirely new pricing scheme.  Even in this forum thread, there are huge contradictions between these various proposals.  None of this becomes a basis for suggesting we should abandon our current well researched pricing model.

    By contrast, the project challenges you've described help us identify potential compromises.  Once we understand your challenges, we can figure out how to help.  So please, stick to describing your challenges and let us work out the details.

    Thanks everyone,

    Gabe Sumner
    Telerik | Sitefinity CMS
  18. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe

    Did you miss my question reggarding the LiveWriter users?  Do we have an answer to that question.  We are trying to work within the constraints but we need answers to these questions to do that.
  19. Markus
    Markus avatar
    2763 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2005
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Gabe

    QUOTE
    People and lost productivity cost a lot more than software.
    UNQUOTE

    Again this is true for big companies but not for a lot of owner run small business. They work evenings and weekends to do acounting and other stuff. So less work cecause of more productivity gives them more time off, but not more in the bank account.

    Again for huge comparation a 20k license is absolutely nothing - to a small business 2k could mean the whole budget for advertisment for a year. Or one week less vacation with the family!

    Working for a big company like Telerik might make it a bit hard to understand the little guys :-)

    --------------

    I have great confidence that Telerik will once again provide us with solutions (not only technicaly speaking) that we can use to prived our small customers with the best CMS. (Maybe buy a 4.0 license get a 3.7 solution, heck 3.7 is very good!)

    Markus
  20. Steve
    Steve avatar
    3037 posts
    Registered:
    03 Dec 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Gabe, there's been a bunch of posts on using up concurrent in the front-end but nobody actually ends up responding to it.  I'm HOPING that this means it's at least being talked about?

    Anyway, FYI for anyone looking at Ultimate with educational discount, it runs around $7,999...so not bad right now...might want to get all over that since the pricing scale wont be changing.

  21. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Steve

    Do you have that price confirmed by Sales or is that an assumption based on Gabes comment above about the 50% +academic discount?

    I have asked whether both discounts apply and have not gotten a difinitive answer from anyone.

    I would prefer an answer from Telerik but I will take a confirmed answer from another license holder if need be.
  22. Steve
    Steve avatar
    3037 posts
    Registered:
    03 Dec 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @ bleutiger

    Active quote from sales...along with another new standard license, but I don't think that factored into the seemingly low price.

    **Edit** so yes 60% discount, they do stack
  23. Richard
    Richard avatar
    24 posts
    Registered:
    25 Apr 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Gabe says:

    Telerik would make whatever investment was required to enable us to get the job done.  If it's an important resource and it helps us be productive, it's worth it.  People and lost productivity cost a lot more than software.

    Gabe,
    Did you ever think that during a global recession might not be optimal timing for a huge price increase? Many of us DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS to "make whatever investment was required". It is not a choice we can make. Telerik is taking a calculated risk that lost business will be offset by income from new customers. You may well be right but you will alienate a lot of people in the process.
  24. Sean
    Sean avatar
    2 posts
    Registered:
    18 Nov 2010
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi,

    I have read through nearly all of these posts and searched the forum.  I would just like one direct answer to clear up a question.  Regarding the concurrent users:  I understand this means those with back-end or administrative control.  Just to be clear - this should not affect those that are logged into the site to see restricted content (as in an extranet setting).  This is my one main concern of functionality.

    Thanks
  25. Steve
    Steve avatar
    3037 posts
    Registered:
    03 Dec 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Sean, yes as of right now that's exactly what it *should be*...

    If a user logs in anywhere on your front end with no intention of viewing anything in the backend or changing a page, and they exist in the Backend Users Role...you use up one of those concurrent users.
  26. Richard
    Richard avatar
    24 posts
    Registered:
    25 Apr 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    If a user logs in anywhere on your front end with no intention of viewing anything in the backend or changing a page, and they exist in the Backend Users Role...you use up one of those concurrent users.

    This makes the product unusable for me.

    Here is my use case: My users (researchers) log into the site to check the progress of their experiments through pages with user controls. Many of those users are also able to edit pages on the site but they rarely do so.

    So we would have situations where all of the concurrent CMS users were used up but NOBODY was actually editing the site! This is a poor design choice, how do you justify it?

    Concurrent user limits should only apply to /Sitefinity. If this isn't changed I'm out of here, and yes, we will devote our scarce staff resources to a migration to our campus CMS rather than devoting our scarce funds to Telerik. I am not willing to resort to workarounds like giving each of my users two logins, they won't tolerate that well and it would be a nightmare to administer.
  27. Sean
    Sean avatar
    2 posts
    Registered:
    18 Nov 2010
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Thanks for the quick reply Steve.  Much appreciated.

    I figured I would throw my two cents in the discussion as from my point of view it seems this software is right on target as far as price.  I am a former Joomla user moving to a Microsoft shop now hence how I got into looking at .NET CMS's.  The two big choices it seemed were Umbraco and Sitefinity.

    While the pricing changes are pretty significant - it quickly appeared how reasonable they were once a little research was done.  Umbraco for one ends up costing over 5k if you want full company support.  Plus 2k renewal fee per year.  Arguably you could say that support isn't necessary which bumps you down to $850, but full support from a company as reputable as Telerik is pretty huge.  Not to mention the community is thriving (where else do you get replies to posts within a few minutes on the forums).  I know you sure don't on the open source boards.

    That and based on what has been shown to us about this 4.0 model - everything here is more polished.  It just seems easier to use for the clients that will be using the site.  Not to mention easier for the designers and developers.

    I can understand how many organizations will not be able to deal with 5 concurrent back-end users, but I think this is mainly because they are the only ones speaking up (sort of how people 75% of the time complain about companies online because that's the only time you are willing to go to the trouble to write something).  I think Telerik is being honest with their assessment of how many users are needed by most organizations.  Hell, even with +50 employees there will only need to be 2 or 3 on at any given moment assuming the company has a webmaster and marketing staff.

    All in all, it still seems well worth a 2k investment (model I am currently looking at).
  28. Gabe Sumner
    Gabe Sumner avatar
    440 posts
    Registered:
    09 Sep 2007
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    bluetiger: Did you miss my question reggarding the LiveWriter users? 

    I didn't miss it, I just don't know yet.  I'm getting the details.  

    Steve: Gabe, there's been a bunch of posts on using up concurrent in the front-end but nobody actually ends up responding to it.  I'm HOPING that this means it's at least being talked about?

    It's being talked about.  Don't read too much into that though.

    Richard: Many of us DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDS to "make whatever investment was required". 

    All I can do is invite you to contact sales@sitefinity.com and describe your challenges.  We have a lot of discounts we're currently able to offer. 

    Sean: All in all, it still seems well worth a 2k investment (model I am currently looking at).

    Thank you for your post Sean.

    Gabe Sumner
    Telerik | Sitefinity CMS
  29. bleutiger
    bleutiger avatar
    153 posts
    Registered:
    23 Oct 2008
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @ Gabe

    Thanks for the reply...not trying to be pushy for answers but this is really causing us some chaos at the moment.  We have had to step back and reevaluate and we need all the information we can get.

    Incidently the piece I was talking about is called the "MetaWeblog API" if that helps clarify things.

  30. Bob
    Bob avatar
    330 posts
    Registered:
    24 Sep 2012
    18 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi bleutiger,

    Sitefinity 4.0 supports AtomPub protocol for LiveWriter instead of MetaWeblog which was the supported protocol in SF 3.x.

    Yes the concurrent connections count in that case also, but those connections last very shortly, usually less than a second.  AtomPub supports basic authentication only. That means the credentials are sent with every request in the HTTP headers. No session is maintained, which means that each request is authenticated at the beginning and then the occupied slot is released at the end of the request. Even with a single available slot it will take quite a lot of users to encounter conflicts. How many users? It really depends on how active they are and how often they publish.

    Kind regards,
    Bob
    the Telerik team

    Do you want to have your say when we set our development plans? Do you want to know when a feature you care about is added or when a bug fixed? Explore the Telerik Public Issue Tracking system and vote to affect the priority of the items
183 posts, 0 answered
1 2 3 4 5 6 7