Open source, but won't run on any open source platform. Wat!

Topics: General
Apr 16 at 3:04 PM
I'm a bit miffed. I've long been on the hunt for modern pretty open source cms that I can easily customize.

I'd rather eat my own testicles than code in php, I could probably live with Java if I had to, but ideally I'm looking for a Dotnet based cms.

Needless to say there isn't much to choose from. DotnetNuke is probably the most well established, then there's Umbraco, MojoPortal and Orchard.

DotnetNuke is totally tied to the Windows stack and doesn't even support any database other than SqlServer.

MojoPortal feels a bit rough around the edges, even their own homepage hosted on their own software isn't all that attractive, but I'll probably give it a chance and see how I get on.

But what really ticks me off though is that Orchard and Umbraco are both open source Dotnet cms, but neither of them run on Mono!

Faced with this knowledge there is a bit of my brain, right at the back, which is screaming, "what on earth is the point of an open source cms that won't run on a single open source platform?".

That's just frustration of course. The real question isn't so much "what's the point", the real question is instead, why would you pass up on such an obvious and straightforward opportunity to reach a massively expanded user base by not supporting a platform that it would cost you almost nothing to support?

Apache is beyond all question the world's preferred web server. Almost no one who isn't employed by MS deploys on IIS unless they are obliged to.

Amongst systems/application developers php is almost universally reviled, with it's purposefully arcane syntax, delight in creating numerous obscure ways of doing the same thing, and blatant disregard for backwards compatibility.

What the world is crying out for is a modern cms built in Dotnet that runs on Apache, and here you are, with almost that exact thing on your hands, and seemingly no desire to make it happen. Mono supports full ASP.Net 4.0 so why would you not target a platform that it would require almost no effort to target and which is likely to double your user base almost immediately?
Apr 16 at 3:47 PM
**Neutrino_ wrote:**
I'm a bit miffed. I've long been on the hunt for modern pretty open source cms that I can easily customize.

I'd rather eat my own testicles than code in php, I could probably live with Java if I had to, but ideally I'm looking for a Dotnet based cms.

Needless to say there isn't much to choose from. DotnetNuke is probably the most well established, then there's Umbraco, MojoPortal and Orchard.

DotnetNuke is totally tied to the Windows stack and doesn't even support any database other than SqlServer.

MojoPortal feels a bit rough around the edges, even their own homepage hosted on their own software isn't all that attractive, but I'll probably give it a chance and see how I get on.

But what really ticks me off though is that Orchard and Umbraco are both open source Dotnet cms, but neither of them run on Mono!

Faced with this knowledge there is a bit of my brain, right at the back, which is screaming, "what on earth is the point of an open source cms that won't run on a single open source platform?".

That's just frustration of course. The real question isn't so much "what's the point", the real question is instead, why would you pass up on such an obvious and straightforward opportunity to reach a massively expanded user base by not supporting a platform that it would cost you almost nothing to support?

Apache is beyond all question the world's preferred web server. Almost no one who isn't employed by MS deploys on IIS unless they are obliged to.

Amongst systems/application developers php is almost universally reviled, with it's purposefully arcane syntax, delight in creating numerous obscure ways of doing the same thing, and blatant disregard for backwards compatibility.

What the world is crying out for is a modern cms built in Dotnet that runs on Apache, and here you are, with almost that exact thing on your hands, and seemingly no desire to make it happen. Mono supports full ASP.Net 4.0 so why would you not target a platform that it would require almost no effort to target and which is likely to double your user base almost immediately?
In short: it looks like it does require some work, otherwise mono could just run it as-is ;)

I have no problem running IIS and I'm not employed by MS :P

Worlds preferred web server means nothing, I'm rather sure you'll find the same about PHP and you do agree that PHP has its own issues.

In short, as multiple people here will say : feel free to make Orchard mono compatible (some people have made progress on that btw) but I disagree that this should be a main focus of the project.

I think keeping mono support in mind at every turn, will result in a .NET CMS that can no longer be 'bleeding edge' since we'll always have to 'slow down' for mono.

Also, "what on earth is the point of an open source cms that won't run on a single open source platform?".

Since when is that a requirement? Want a point? That point allowed me to use Orchard in a commercial setting as we had to do multiple tweaks, something not doable in a closed source CMS. So there is your point.

FYI, www.tacx.com is our - Orchard powered - website. Running fine on IIS / MSSQL 2012 ;)
Developer
Apr 17 at 1:51 AM
Taking the short route of replying: Orchard does run on Mono. It's not official or maintained in the core but it does work.

Mono compatibility is is far from being a trivial task to implement or maintain. It's not just a no-brainer to decide on but loads of hard work.

Also Owin is getting its traction in the ASP.NET community and also slowly finding its way into Orchard. This might lead us to a more generic way of having Orchard as a multi-platform application.
Apr 22 at 11:19 AM
I'd already come across that discussion where tleslie has managed to get Orchard running on Mono. It's inspiring that someone is willing to go to that much effort to explore the possibilities, but ultimately if there is no appetite from the core Orchard community to support these efforts then then I fear the attempt is futile.

What I mean by this is that if the Orchard community is more dedicated to remaining on the 'bleeding edge' of ASP dotnet functionality than in achieving broad platform support, then it seems inevitable that whatever progress tleslie has made is almost certain to be lost as even minor version Orchard updates are likely to introduce further incompatibilities. It would take a brave site admin indeed to roll out anything public facing on such a foundation (as tleslie himself observes).

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying that the Orchard community is wrong in persuing bleeding-edge advancement over broader platform support. As in most things there is no right or wrong in this, it's your project and your choice. I'm just stating my view that in this situation I think broader platform support would do more to promote interest in (and usage of) the Orchard project.