This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The Alfresco product has a lean, modular component architecture that allows new functionality to be added without any system disruption and is significantly faster than proprietary commercial systems." - Is this POV or is there actual data to substantiate that there is no system disruption and that it is faster than (which?ll?) commercial systems? -- Davidp 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"Alfresco is the first ... and a groundbreaking ... takes the lessons of building content management systems for the last 15 years ...". It's not POV. It's an advertisement. 81.208.83.222 13:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Alfresco CMS recently switched to the GNU General Public License. Due the switch the company wants to insure that the code will stay open - or as Marketing-Manager Matt Asay said, "We want that the code is bigger than the company." For now the company decided to stay under the "GPL2 only" version of the license. A change to the GPLv3, currently under development, is later possible, said Alfresco.
Source: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85796
I just went to Alfresco's website and it indicates that you can download trial versions for 30 days and it also has the option to contact the sales team for pricing information. Is this still a free software or have they moved to some other license? Could somebody please clarify? Golebara ( talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the no footnotes macro as this seems to have been improved. Kennethbarber ( talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I move awards here. They are likely the last thing that may look like advert. They are not exactly bad on they own but seem making a too big proportion of the otherwise short article. Audriusa ( talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
References
Each time I look into Alfresco I wonder what the current open source status is. I wonder if it would help the article to include a section about it. To clarify the difference I'll cite some posts I found on the web which explained it to me.
The Labs version always contains a lot of bugs. With newer versions the old bugs are fixed but since the Labs version seems to be some kind of playground for Alfresco each labs version contains a lot of new buggy "features".
— http://stackoverflow.com/questions/150591/using-alfresco-community-in-production, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
Labs has since evolved into a Community Edition.
The community release has undergone limited testing and care should be taken before upgrading any previous Alfresco Community version with this version.
— http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Alfresco_Community_4.2.b_Release_Notes, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
Basically, the major difference between community and enterprise is that bug fixes (i.e. patches) go into enterprise sooner.
— http://stackoverflow.com/questions/150591/using-alfresco-community-in-production, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
Community Edition users should be able to patch [...] issues themselves using information provided in the Jiras and forum post [...]. The fixes will be incorporated into the next Community release.
— http://ecmarchitect.com/archives/2012/04/27/1585, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
When I found ourselves in this situation, I usually googled and worked my way through the forums and JIRA picking up hints on the way. I cannot remember a single case where we have found a patch "ready to apply" against an official release, so usually, we had to fix the release code revision (as in svn) ourselves [...] I wish we (as the community) had something - a system and/or process to support our bugfixing needs. A place to exchange community release (bugfix) patches. Google Code, github, sourceforge all work fine for extensions, but they don't work well for "core changes".
— http://www.contentreich.de/alfresco-community-bugfixing, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
More information on what is included or not included in the community version is explained on the enterprise subscription (retrieved on 2012-12-06) pages. The page on upgrades and maintenance has a diagram which explains the relation between community and enterprise. -- Beljoost ( talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There has been a tag added to the article regarding the quality of references. The original tag was removed when the content being reference was removed. (There was a "citation needed" reference). So technically this is a new call-out by Grayfell. That said, the specific comment is in regards to a new reference and I will address that.
The change states that Press Releases are not good references. That is a sound rule. The reference in question is a preexisting statement of staff joining Alfresco. Looking at an older version Version from December 2016 shows the previous state, complete with the now removed phrase of additional staff additions. The article statement merely mentions the joining of the staff, not the quality or the impact. The only reference still in existence of this action is that Press Release.
That statement in the article is purely factual and offers no judgement as to whether or not it was good or bad. It does not judge the quality of the staff changes. For that reason, the Press Release seems to be a valid source. THAT SAID, if there is no agreement, then we can merely remove that history statement as it is purely academic in nature as part of the history of the software firm and doesn't directly pertain to what most people are likely trying to learn visiting this page. Pie1120 ( talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This was added by Grayfell and I would like to know what wording reads like an advert. Neutral sources are cited for the features and capabilities and no words such as leading, best-in-class, or other judgmental words are used. There are still negative references on the pages regarding the limitations of the open-source versions. If specific examples could be cited, I am sure that either agreeable wording could be leveraged or the text in question can be removed without removing clarity.
An important part of this is my motivation. I edited the pages as they reflected information from before the previous major release and subsequent product renaming. As someone who actively uses the software, and has for many years, and with writing skills, I decided to update the page. I was not provided any text to use or points to make. These are my words based upon my experience, and I tripled the citations in the article in order to make sure that every statement was factual and substantiated. I plan to make edits to other software products in the ECM industry as time and knowledge permits. Pie1120 ( talk) 02:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
a suite of digital information management systems? How is anyone not already deep in the muck going to have a clue what that actually means? How is this a
core offering, and what does that mean in non-business speak? There are other examples as well, such as
"geared towards". This is a subtle form of editorializing, because it implies that the products are good at something, instead of merely stating their intended function.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The Alfresco product has a lean, modular component architecture that allows new functionality to be added without any system disruption and is significantly faster than proprietary commercial systems." - Is this POV or is there actual data to substantiate that there is no system disruption and that it is faster than (which?ll?) commercial systems? -- Davidp 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"Alfresco is the first ... and a groundbreaking ... takes the lessons of building content management systems for the last 15 years ...". It's not POV. It's an advertisement. 81.208.83.222 13:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
The Alfresco CMS recently switched to the GNU General Public License. Due the switch the company wants to insure that the code will stay open - or as Marketing-Manager Matt Asay said, "We want that the code is bigger than the company." For now the company decided to stay under the "GPL2 only" version of the license. A change to the GPLv3, currently under development, is later possible, said Alfresco.
Source: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85796
I just went to Alfresco's website and it indicates that you can download trial versions for 30 days and it also has the option to contact the sales team for pricing information. Is this still a free software or have they moved to some other license? Could somebody please clarify? Golebara ( talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the no footnotes macro as this seems to have been improved. Kennethbarber ( talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I move awards here. They are likely the last thing that may look like advert. They are not exactly bad on they own but seem making a too big proportion of the otherwise short article. Audriusa ( talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
References
Each time I look into Alfresco I wonder what the current open source status is. I wonder if it would help the article to include a section about it. To clarify the difference I'll cite some posts I found on the web which explained it to me.
The Labs version always contains a lot of bugs. With newer versions the old bugs are fixed but since the Labs version seems to be some kind of playground for Alfresco each labs version contains a lot of new buggy "features".
— http://stackoverflow.com/questions/150591/using-alfresco-community-in-production, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
Labs has since evolved into a Community Edition.
The community release has undergone limited testing and care should be taken before upgrading any previous Alfresco Community version with this version.
— http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Alfresco_Community_4.2.b_Release_Notes, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
Basically, the major difference between community and enterprise is that bug fixes (i.e. patches) go into enterprise sooner.
— http://stackoverflow.com/questions/150591/using-alfresco-community-in-production, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
Community Edition users should be able to patch [...] issues themselves using information provided in the Jiras and forum post [...]. The fixes will be incorporated into the next Community release.
— http://ecmarchitect.com/archives/2012/04/27/1585, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
When I found ourselves in this situation, I usually googled and worked my way through the forums and JIRA picking up hints on the way. I cannot remember a single case where we have found a patch "ready to apply" against an official release, so usually, we had to fix the release code revision (as in svn) ourselves [...] I wish we (as the community) had something - a system and/or process to support our bugfixing needs. A place to exchange community release (bugfix) patches. Google Code, github, sourceforge all work fine for extensions, but they don't work well for "core changes".
— http://www.contentreich.de/alfresco-community-bugfixing, Retrieved on 2012-12-06.
More information on what is included or not included in the community version is explained on the enterprise subscription (retrieved on 2012-12-06) pages. The page on upgrades and maintenance has a diagram which explains the relation between community and enterprise. -- Beljoost ( talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
There has been a tag added to the article regarding the quality of references. The original tag was removed when the content being reference was removed. (There was a "citation needed" reference). So technically this is a new call-out by Grayfell. That said, the specific comment is in regards to a new reference and I will address that.
The change states that Press Releases are not good references. That is a sound rule. The reference in question is a preexisting statement of staff joining Alfresco. Looking at an older version Version from December 2016 shows the previous state, complete with the now removed phrase of additional staff additions. The article statement merely mentions the joining of the staff, not the quality or the impact. The only reference still in existence of this action is that Press Release.
That statement in the article is purely factual and offers no judgement as to whether or not it was good or bad. It does not judge the quality of the staff changes. For that reason, the Press Release seems to be a valid source. THAT SAID, if there is no agreement, then we can merely remove that history statement as it is purely academic in nature as part of the history of the software firm and doesn't directly pertain to what most people are likely trying to learn visiting this page. Pie1120 ( talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This was added by Grayfell and I would like to know what wording reads like an advert. Neutral sources are cited for the features and capabilities and no words such as leading, best-in-class, or other judgmental words are used. There are still negative references on the pages regarding the limitations of the open-source versions. If specific examples could be cited, I am sure that either agreeable wording could be leveraged or the text in question can be removed without removing clarity.
An important part of this is my motivation. I edited the pages as they reflected information from before the previous major release and subsequent product renaming. As someone who actively uses the software, and has for many years, and with writing skills, I decided to update the page. I was not provided any text to use or points to make. These are my words based upon my experience, and I tripled the citations in the article in order to make sure that every statement was factual and substantiated. I plan to make edits to other software products in the ECM industry as time and knowledge permits. Pie1120 ( talk) 02:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
a suite of digital information management systems? How is anyone not already deep in the muck going to have a clue what that actually means? How is this a
core offering, and what does that mean in non-business speak? There are other examples as well, such as
"geared towards". This is a subtle form of editorializing, because it implies that the products are good at something, instead of merely stating their intended function.