It appears to be a native written ASP.NET front end custom built. Just a web form.
 
Here is a recommendation for a state for art ASP.NET bug tracker, if you need a hand getting something like this running please let me know:
http://www.countersoft.com/
 
Cheers.

FWIW that is not our bug tracking software, it's just a web form that ties into our database and allows us to push stuff to our bug tracking software if needed or elsewhere if needed.

JimmyBoy

Ryan Munnis [Cakewalk]

JimmyBoy
 
Hi Ryan,
 
If it wasn't for google & Alex's bug list I'd lose all track of the bug report I submitted, try this link here and you will see it 2nd from the top...
 
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jimmyboy+CWBRN+site%3Aforum.cakewalk.com
 
Cheers
Jim

Hi Jim,
 
I don't rely on an unofficial list to try to find out who submitted what. I'm using the actual tools which only shows two reports matching your email address tied to the forum account. The only explanation is that you're referring to the fault reports I found or you used a different email address.
 
There's no need to send me "let me google that for you" links. I know how to reference the real systems we have in place. If you want to PM me your email addresses I could easily return a list of every report you've ever submitted to us so you don't have to use Google.
 
Thanks!
 
-Ryan
 
 
 
 

Hi Ryan,
 
Thanks for looking into this for me.... Really appreciate it, I know sometimes "state of the art" systems can fail and from time to time we need to look closer into it - I should have followed up earlier but had no time to do so as so many other things have a much more higher priority for me these days than to report some problem with your system.
 
Anyway, the email I used to file the report is the email I have registered with this forum user.
 
The use of lmgtfy is simply an illustration of the experience I have when logging a bug, and how frustrating it can become when expecting an update that never arrives and also not being able to lookup the bug I originally logged..
 
Cheers
Jim

Hi Jim,

Just wanted to follow up. On the report you referenced, looks like the breakdown happened due to a typo in your email address.

This explains no returned communication from Cakewalk and also why I couldn't locate it and you couldn't pull it up again. I can't update the address from my phone but I'll update it next time I have a few and I'm at my PC.

-Ryan

Anderton

elsongs
The next Sonar version may very well be a Tascam-branded product...

I doubt it.

Craig you have explained this already. Some may have not read those threads.

CW and Tascam: two different companies. Which happen to be owned by the same company, Gibson.

Alex I really don't think anyone on this thread tried to insult you. Nor did they say what you and others are doing is "wrong."

I take it what the bakers are saying as:

the service that the list provides to x number of users is outweighed by the disservice it provides to the company and forum as a whole.

IOW, your and the others efforts are commendable, but the effort could be put to better use.

I believe as you do Alex, the discussions we as forum users have had about the problems we experienced has contributed to the updates, but it is not the only contributing factor.

As a long time user, and longtime forum member, I like the way things are. X3 is a great product.

Grem

Anderton

elsongs
The next Sonar version may very well be a Tascam-branded product...

I doubt it.

Craig you have explained this already. Some may have not read those threads.

CW and Tascam: two different companies. Which happen to be owned by the same company, Gibson.

The confusion arises because there will likely be an entity called TASCAM Professional Software, which will be oriented toward distribution. TASCAM, being a huge force in recording, could help condsiderably in getting mindshare and shelf space for Cakewalk Sonar. As a similar example, Cakewalk products are already being distributed by Hal Leonard, which distributes to markets like education.

Grem
Alex I really don't think anyone on this thread tried to insult you. Nor did they say what you and others are doing is "wrong."

I take it what the bakers are saying as:

the service that the list provides to x number of users is outweighed by the disservice it provides to the company and forum as a whole.

IOW, your and the others efforts are commendable, but the effort could be put to better use.

IMHO it's simpler than that. Think of it this way: If there was a bug-tracking forum, this would not even be an issue because there would be a venue for bug-tracking that would not create a split personality within the main forum.
 
As an analogy, suppose you went to a club to see a concert. Every 15 minutes, a very bright engineer gets up and talks for a few minutes about the technology used by the band. Then the band resumes playing for another 15 minutes. Some people in the audience (including myself, LOL) would find that interesting, but I think most people would be waiting for the band to start playing again. And someone walking into the club while the engineer was talking would think "Hmmm, I thought this was a place to hear music...guess I'll go find a club where a band is playing."
 
As to why there currently isn't a bug-tracking forum, the Bakers can speak to that but I assume it's because 1) they find the current bug-tracking system better suited to their needs than a forum, 2) they feel there are potentially better ways to do this than a forum (which tends to be difficult to organize), so there's little point in starting something now that will be replaced eventually by something better.
 
The bottom line isn't really about how bugs are tracked, it's about whether there's a mechanism in place that allows Cakewalk to assimilate information from the field efficiently and allows them to fix AND then QC bugs. There currently is one that works very well internally, but is not public-facing. However as Ryan said above, Cakewalk is evaluating ways to provide a better customer experience for dealing with feedback to the user base on reports. Meanwhile, the efforts that go into identifying and reproducing bugs is appreciated; the proof is in the bugfix list for each update, and the thanks Cakewalk gives to the user base with each update.

@ Grem The offending posts were deleted here although I wasn't talking about this particular thread so much. Either way it's the internet so haters will always hate esp when you are extremely visible and exposed (I've gotten used to it).


All we have here is an accurate list of reproducible bugs we have compiled. This has been a community effort in my view. I as well as others have put in a lot of effort and time into it.
 
Cake will of course do what they like, but here is how I suggest Cake resolve the current issue:
 
1) Get that list down to right down low. That is the ultimate solution and I appreciate this will not be done overnight rather it will be done in a reasonable period of time (decide for yourself what "reasonable" means I don't wish to debate it). I'm sure this must be the plan anyway (in the current climate it would be simply insane not to do this).
 
2) Stop undermining peoples genuine efforts and start giving a little credit (I'm specifically pointing to what QA has to say about us which frankly comes across as arrogant). Interact more. We after all give credit to Cakewalk for their excellent efforts. I rarely (maybe never) have seen the word "thankyou" projected from their end. It's like we are somehow interfering with their processes, and we are "evil", I suspect we are probably more interfering with their ego to be honest... (sorry to come across blunt but this is how it feels).
 
3) Better public facing QA. Cake QA right now appears to be sending a different message to what other Cake staff are saying. QA does not seem to understand we aren't talking about their internal systems which I'm sure are better than HAL on a crack pipe, we are talking about the public facing outer shell. I look forward to it being sorted out in the fullness of time. Right now what is going on is at the public end is NOT optimal or "state of art" as previously stated by QA, and I am glad now that Cake acknowledges this.

4) Stop being frightened about talking about bugs in public and in the open. Dealt with the right hand it actually improves your image against competitors. People are less concerned with actual bugs, they are more concerned with what is happening to tackle it or finding out whether somebody else has it so "it's not just them". I can entirely understand why Cake does not want to talk about features though, that is a totally different kettle of fish..
 
5) Stop moaning at me about the forum traffic as though this is somehow my responsibility. Give us our own forum then and allow us to move relevant posts across related to reproducible bugs. Or give us better front facing tools like this configured with the right public facing permissions, rather than a dead end web form.
 
If what I do does such a great disservice in the forums I'm more than willing to fork it to another website. Opinion seems to be split down the middle, and there are those who remain out of view, so we must be doing something right. Either way we are doing it for genuine reasons and not to rock the boat so my conscience is clear.

Alex, you took it upon yourself to do this so I fail to see why Cakewalk should thank you for a task that you werent asked to do...I havent seen a single reference as to when the Bakers have citied you as "evil".
 
Obviously you have put alot of work in here, and thats to your credit. But as such, its so personal to you but really not that personal to alot of us users who dont really want the forum swamped with bug reports. Also, to alot of new users even your username suggests you are official Cakewalk, which obviously you are not. To that end, its my humble opinion that you setup a forum thats not in official Sonar land where we can all help you with your bug list there (I say this in the nicest possible way)
 
I think Anderton is very correct with his analogy about going into a gig... Alot of people come to this forum with a problem or to rave how good the product is, they dont expect to come into a QA forum.

I cant think of a single company that likes talking about defects in their product in an online public forum, its not good for business. The fact that they chime in here at all is a credit to them.

Alex, please read my post. It already addressed most of what you said. As to this:
 

CakeAlexS
2) Stop undermining peoples genuine efforts and start giving a little credit (I'm specifically pointing to what QA has to say about us which frankly comes across as arrogant). Interact more. We after all give credit to Cakewalk for their excellent efforts. I rarely (maybe never) have seen the word "thankyou" projected from their end. It's like we are somehow interfering with their processes, and we are "evil", I suspect we are probably more interfering with their ego to be honest... (sorry to come across blunt but this is how it feels).

That is absolutely not true. In the announcement for X3e, which was published on this web site when X3e was introduced AND sent out globally as a press release that got picked up by many members of the international media, the ONLY quote from a Cakewalk representative wasn't some self-serving blurb about how great Cakewalk is, but said the following:
 
“The continuing success of SONAR X3 is the result of what has essentially become a partnership with our user base. Their suggestions for enhancements have not only provided detailed, intelligent feedback, but inspired us to continue building on SONAR X3’s stability and functionality” said Cakewalk Product Manager Bill Jackson. “We are happy to release such a comprehensive list of enhancements to our loyal user base.”
 
That sounds neither thankless nor arrogant to me.
 
There is nothing wrong with discussing bugs, but there have been many days when most of the front page looked like this WAS a bug-tracking forum. I think that element of excess was what upset people who have other reasons for visiting this forum, and what started the complaints from those people.
 
ALL of the forums I've moderated over the years had rules against "flooding," and would allow a person to post only a certain number of threads within a 24-hour period. This was not necessarily out of concern that someone didn't have something relevant to say, but more in a spirit of keeping any one person or topic from monopolizing a forum so there would be plenty of variety. Cakewalk doesn't do this because they run this forum on the "honor system" that places minimum restrictions on the participants, but it is considered an important part of general netiquette not to start or bump too many threads in one day. Doing so will generally get negative comments from communities, regardless of the intention or subject matter.