FYI,
The Client Code Suite technology preview has been released. Here's a
copy of the email sent to participants in the New Services Evaluation
(NSE).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
Welcome to the Client Code Suite Technology Preview Program.
This email provides you with links to valuable reference materials so
that you can begin previewing the OpenSRS Client Code Suite.
Program Scope:
The Client Code Suite program provides functionality that will allow
you to perform:
* new registrations
* renewals,
* transfers, and
* management functionality
for domains in .com/.net/.info/.org/.biz/.ca namespace.
Over time, the Client Code Suite will be enhanced to include install
and setup tools as well as other services. Your input in helping us to
prioritize these services would be appreciated.
Please use this preview release only in a Test environment, as it has
not been fully qualified for a production environment.
Reference Weblog:
Tucows has created a reference weblog at http://ccs.tucows.com.
Please visit this site for information on PHP5 and how to install it.
The reference documentation, Client Code Suite software download and
install instructions, tips and tricks, and program announcements are
also available. Please bookmark this site for future reference.
Discussion Forums:
You can participate in two discussion forums:
General Forum:
http://news.r.tucows.com/phorum/list.php?f=26 - Please use this forum
to discuss general thoughts and comments about the Client Code Suite
including new features, functionality enhancements, etc.
Developer Forum:
http://news.r.tucows.com/phorum/list.php?f=27 - Please use this forum
to share technical comments including feedback on the Application
Control Framework (ACF), ease of use, and install process, and
software structure.
You may also access the forums by clicking on:
http://news.r.tucows.com/phorum and then clicking on "Forum",
"New Service Evaluations", "OpenSRS", "Client Code Suite" which
will then show you links to the "General" and "Developer" forums.
Please note that Tucows will be moderating the forums.
Client Code Suite Application:
The Client Code Suite is available for download from
http://ccs.tucows.com. In order to download the files, you will be
required to create a Reader Account for the blog. This functionality
is located in the left side of the web page.
Feedback:
During the eight-week preview program, Tucows may contact you for
your feedback individually or by survey. We respect and appreciate
the time and resources you have allocated to this program and will
try to be as succinct as possible.
Support:
Tucows is providing limited support to program participants. For
assistance, please contact Joey de Villa at ccspreview@tucows.com.
Lee Garrison
vp, product management
Tucows Inc.
www.tucowsinc.com
416.538.5441 direct
416.535.0123 main
On 9-Sep-04, at 9:24 AM, Lee Garrison wrote:
> Greetings,
> I'm wading into discuss-list to both introduce myself and give you an
> update on what's happening with Client Code. I'm not really
> the-new-kid-on-the-block anymore, but I've hopefully learned enough
> inside Tucows now to discuss product directions and understand your
> issues, input and feedback. I won't pretend to be an expert, so any
> background explanation you can provide would be much appreciated.
>
> Following on Elliot's commitment back in July, a team here at Tucows
> has been working on the next generation of client code and we'll be
> ready to provide a technology preview in the next few weeks. Given our
> past history on this, we decided that a preview release, even though
> incomplete, would enable you to have as much visibility and influence
> as possible on its future direction. So, I encourage you (even if you
> are cynical from past experience) to plan to participate and give us
> your feedback especially in the early stages.
>
> We've sent an LRU with more details, but the Client Code Suite (CCS)
> Technology Preview will be released through the New Service Evaluation
> (NSE) Program. If you haven't already registered, please do and let us
> know that you are specifically interested in the CCS Tech Preview.
> Info about the NSE is here:
> http://nse.r.tucows.com/ and sign-up is here:
> http://nse.r.tucows.com/enroll
>
> We'll expect participants to install, test, and comment on the new
> client code architecture and functionality for registering domain
> names and you'll need a test environment with PHP5 for the Tech
> Preview.
>
> cheers
> Lee Garrison
> vp, product management
> Tucows Inc.
> 416.538.5441 direct
>
>
> On 14-Jul-04, at 3:02 PM, elliot noss wrote:
>
>> Well at least you didn't send this one in caps! :-)
>>
>> I apologize for the delay, but I did not want to respond until I
>> could do so with some level of specificity. That required me to
>> co-ordinate with numerous people inside the organization (or do the
>> CEO on the IBM commercial thing and say "next week" and watch
>> everyone run around).
>>
>> I will not repeat that I am disappointed with our handling of this
>> issue (uh, I guess I just did). I will commit to three things:
>>
>> - there will be new client code by the middle of September
>> - it will be upgradable such that it will not require breaking
>> scripts to install a new version and
>> - it WILL be platform agnostic.
>>
>> To say anything more would be to try and excuse or explain, neither
>> of which is relevant. Once again, sorry.
>>
>> I will have someone contact you directly on your specific issue.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Robert Macleod wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Elliot,
>>> Are you now able to share the plans for the client code with us ?
>>> I have just tried to install the latest client (2.8.3.2) and having
>>> struggled to get it working resorted to the manual :-)
>>> It is bad enough that there is are only detailed installation
>>> instructions for the Linux/Unix platform but I was deeply
>>> disappointed
>>> to find that the entire coverage for the Windows platform is the
>>> paragraph below:-
>>> "The client library has not been specifically tested on the Windows
>>> platform. Some have noted problems compiling the ciphers. If you are
>>> unable to compile Crypt::DES or Crypt::Blowfish, try
>>> Crypt::Blowfish_PP
>>> (an implementation written in Pure Perl). While slower than the
>>> standard
>>> Crypt::Blowfish module, Crypt::Blowfish_PP requires no compilation."
>>> I though that the client code was meant to be platform agnostic but
>>> the
>>> required modules for HTTPS do not appear to be available for the
>>> Windows
>>> platform. I was bad enough before that the client had stagnated but
>>> it now appears
>>> to be moving backwards at least for resellers on the Windows
>>> platform.
>>> These issues impact my business and make it more and more difficult
>>> for
>>> me to justify continuing to stay with OpenSRS.
>>> Regards
>>> Rob
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
>>> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org] On Behalf Of Elliot Noss
>>> Sent: 07 April 2004 12:12
>>> To: Robert Macleod; elliot noss; Todd Jagger
>>> Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org
>>> Subject: Re: Managed DNS Service concerns (tangent)
>>> Yes and no. The issue here is one of form not substance. There are
>>> two things.
>>> The first is a simple HR issue. We have recently added a new fellow,
>>> Lee
>>> Garrison, as VP, Products (separately, we are very excited about Lee
>>> joining us. He brings a bit of a different skill set than we have
>>> had in
>>> the past). The client code migration path, and communicating it,
>>> falls
>>> into his area of responsibility. He just started on Monday and
>>> understands quite well that this is on his plate for quick
>>> turnaround.
>>> The second is how much or how little to communicate. Do we talk about
>>> what we are planning to do next week or next year? My preference is
>>> always to give you guys as much visibility as possible, but the
>>> longer
>>> the time horizon the bigger and more complicated the communication
>>> becomes.
>>> A lot of work has been done on this issue internally. It is just not
>>> yet
>>> visible.
>>> I don't want to commit Lee to a date on his third day in the office,
>>> but
>>> it will be soon. Robert, if there is a specific issue that you are
>>> wrestling with please speak to your rep or let me know offlist and we
>>> will see if we can get you the info you need to make a decision, or
>>> the
>>> resources to help you with something.
>>> I know this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope it
>>> helps.
>>> Regards
>>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 07:05:10 +0100
>>> "Robert Macleod" <robert.macleod@natweb.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi Elliot,
>>>>
>>>> Are you now able to share the plans for the client code with us ?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org
>>>> [mailto:owner-discuss-list@opensrs.org] On Behalf Of elliot noss
>>>> Sent: 05 February 2004 22:26
>>>> To: Todd Jagger
>>>> Cc: discuss-list@opensrs.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Managed DNS Service concerns (tangent)
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Time permits.
>>>>
>>>> First, I want to talk briefly about client code and RWI. We are, I
>>>> am,
>>>> in complete agreement with the comments made. The one thing that I
>>>> want
>>>> to make sure is clear is that these items are not being ignored. We
>>>> have spent lots of time and lots of money (little of it well) on
>>>> these two issues. In any organization some things go well and
>>>> others go, um, less well. These two are right at the bottom of my
>>>> personal list. There
>>>> have been too many statements unfulfilled on these two items and I
>>>> do not want to add to the list. I will say folks are working on
>>>> these things and, especially with client code, I will be unhappy if
>>>> you do not see a clear plan shortly (within a month?).
>>>>
>>>> Next, with regard to the level of new services. I personally do not
>>>> agree with the comments below in a couple of ways. When OpenSRS was
>>>> first introduced it was (quite good) beta code. The original
>>>> designer chosen did nothing but make pretty pictures for a few
>>>> months and we had
>>>> to switch all of our plans. We had signed contracts and we had a
>>>> market
>>>> moving at a million miles an hour. We pushed this baby bird out of
>>>> its nest quite early.
>>>>
>>>> The point of all that is that the level of new services launched
>>>> today is miles ahead of when we first released OpenSRS and 100's of
>>>> yards ahead of where the first certs release was. IMHO, each
>>>> release of a new
>>>> service is a little better than the previous.
>>>>
>>>> And SO WHAT. None of that matters, because if there is one lesson
>>>> we have learned and learned well is that we will always learn more
>>>> in the first six months being in the market than we ever will just
>>>> talking with customers and whoever for whatever length of time. If
>>>> you would rather someone else sand off the rough edges so be it. I
>>>> would suggest that offering a service early provides two HUGE
>>>> advantages for you. First, it allows you to participate
>>>> meaningfully in the evolution of the service.
>>>> Second, it allows you to learn how to market the service. IMHO,
>>>> there is
>>>> much more impact today in the way a service is marketed (and by
>>>> this I mean all elements, bundling, pricing, packaging, not just
>>>> where you stick the link or what keyword you buy) than in its
>>>> features.
>>>>
>>>> As for your input, there is an extremely high level of involvement
>>>> with
>>>> customers at all stages of planning and design. Don't believe me?
>>>> Speak
>>>> to your rep and ask to get involved. Anyone willing to be demanding
>>>> is welcome. Many, many of you have participated in surveys, in
>>>> placeware sessions, in one-on-one conversations with product
>>>> management and sales
>>>> and in the NSE program. Again, this pales in comparison, no matter
>>>> how well done, no matter how much done, to being in the market.
>>>>
>>>> Lastly, wrt the comment about the process being used in the
>>>> development
>>>> of blogware vs the development of dns, there are some important
>>>> contextual differences. They are not what I want to comment on
>>>> though.
>>>> Rather I want to highlight that we are learning not only about each
>>>> new
>>>> service, but also about the process of developing new services in
>>>> general.
>>>>
>>>> Each time we do it we try and do it a little better. We hope to
>>>> learn a
>>>> little more from each introduction. The approach we took with
>>>> blogware was much different. Your feedback there is helpful. We
>>>> will try and take the best of each process and leave the worst. It
>>>> will never be perfect, but our goal is that it just always be a
>>>> little bit better.
>>>>
>>>> Be assured, with every thing we do your feedback is what drives it.
>>>> When it doesn't seem that way please remind yourself that you all
>>>> provide feedback in a number of different ways, meaning no one of
>>>> you hears it all, and listening to everyone will NEVER mean
>>>> pleasing everyone. By definition.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for this. It is a great post.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Todd Jagger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> Pardon me for inserting this extrapolated tangent into this
>>>>> thread, however Rob's statements I think deserve some (more)
>>>>> discussion here as they pertain not only to the DNS service but
>>>>> other Tucows products
>>>>
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>>> Let me preface by saying each of us has a different business
>>>>> model, needs, goals, customers, etc. What may be critical to one
>>>>> may be unimportant, or even undesired, by another, and vice
>>>>> versa. Tucows can't be everything to everybody and they have a
>>>>> significant challenge
>>>>
>>>>> in trying to tailor their offerings and services to a vastly
>>>>> diverse
>>>>> customer base. While any endeavor has room for improvement I
>>>>> think overall Tucows has done an exceptional job and, above all,
>>>>> stayed consistent with high standards of ethics and
>>>>> professionalism. In addition they overall seem sincerely
>>>>> interested in what we want.
>>>>> Sometimes they also appear to ignore what we tell them, but at
>>>>> least
>>>>> they're listening. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not Tucows offers X service or Y product is not the
>>>>> topic
>>>>> here. Tucows is going to offer the products and services they
>>>>> determine; that is their prerogative, just as ours is whether or
>>>>> not to resell that service or product, or to do business with
>>>>> Tucows at
>>>>
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>>> What concerns me is the development these products are given and
>>>>> the
>>>>> level at which they are offered. It seems in each case we're
>>>>> given something one or two notches shy of a kick-ass product, and
>>>>> that directly impacts our abilities to sell them to our
>>>>> customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> To use Rob's example, the DNS service without the ability to
>>>>> configure
>>>>
>>>> TTL.
>>>>
>>>>> And the apparent stagnation of the client code interface and RWI.
>>>>> We
>>>>
>>>>> resellers have been bemoaning the state of the client code and RWI
>>>>> usability for literally years. The latest word is that new
>>>>> client code is important and probably 6+ months down the road.
>>>>> I remember
>>>>> that same "official word" perhaps 2 years ago, back when the SF
>>>>> client
>>>>
>>>>> was the model on which the client code was to be built. Specific
>>>>> bugs
>>>>
>>>>> and suggestions have gone unimplemented. (Does the client code
>>>>> currently require a payment method - e.g. credit card input - for
>>>>> renewals? This was the first reason I went to the SF code. We
>>>>> don't
>>>>> want to keep numbers on file, customers' credit cards expire or
>>>>> they change cards or addresses; what is Tucows's model for
>>>>> getting payment
>>>>> on renewals? None apparently from the client code.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The email product has the potential to be a great outsourced
>>>>> service
>>>>> for those of us that offering fits our needs (mine does), and
>>>>> while some of the product are excellent, it falls short of being
>>>>> superior on
>>>>
>>>>> multiple levels. The new feature additions are an improvement but
>>>>> don't quite take it to the A list. The webmail interface is
>>>>> still clunky, even compared to something like Squirrelmail, and
>>>>> doesn't even
>>>>
>>>>> come close to the web interface of Cyrusoft's SilkyMail. And
>>>>> besides,
>>>>
>>>>> how many people want to use webmail for their primary mail client?
>>>>> Not many I know. My clients want the features to be usable from
>>>>> their
>>>>
>>>>> email client, and the webmail is something to use when they're not
>>>>> at
>>>>
>>>> their computer.
>>>>
>>>>> Features like the shared address books are great but aren't going
>>>>> to
>>>>> mean anything to my customers unless they can share them from a
>>>>> mail client. There's no mention of the protocol (is it LDAP?
>>>>> ISMP? ACAP?
>>>>> or something proprietary from Stalker?) There are many other
>>>>> issues,
>>>>> some of which I've raised, and Bruce & Peter, you know how to reach
>>>>
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The point here is that with core reseller products it seems we're
>>>>
>>>> given
>>>>
>>>>> a less than complete, and thus less than competitive, solution.
>>>>> It almost seems that the products (at least the Email and Managed
>>>>> DNS) were determined prior to extensive discussion about what
>>>>> resellers needed/wanted in the offering, and now that the
>>>>> products are out there
>>>>
>>>>> it might be difficult or impossible to mold them to what our
>>>>> customers
>>>>
>>>>> need. This leaves us in a difficult position of either offering
>>>>> something we're not excited about, or not offering it at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is in stark contrast to what's going on with the Blogware
>>>>> development. That product is being tested, hammered on,
>>>>> Bugzilla'ed,
>>>>> discussed in detail, and most importantly modified to what the
>>>>> resellers want. I'm convinced it's going to be, already is
>>>>> really, a
>>>>> top-notch product that's ahead of the curve, not behind it like
>>>>> Email,
>>>>
>>>>> Managed DNS, client code, RWI.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, I'd really like to see Tucows re-tool the quality of the
>>>>
>>>> products
>>>>
>>>>> in the same spirit they're developing Blogware. Remember guys, this
>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>> technology --- you don't want to be playing catch-up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for listening
>>>>> tj
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Elliot Noss
>>>> Tucows Inc.
>>>> 416-538-5494
>>>> enoss.blogware.com
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Elliot Noss
>> Tucows Inc.
>> 416-538-5494
>> enoss.blogware.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:59 EDT