Hi Bernhard, *,
2010/10/25 Bernhard Dippold <email@example.com>:
Le 2010-10-25 09:20, Benjamin Horst a écrit :
On Oct 25, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
The following wasn't written by me, but by Marc ;-)
I don't think that a demo should have all of the features active
was thrown together in so little time. It is not work messing up your
server space with potential hacking.
The time pressure was mentioned from the very beginning. I also
stressed that the demo should be workable, usable.
As mentioned earlier, the problem derives from calling the testing
area "demo". If it had been called "minimal version to start with"
all these necessary functions would have probably been included from
The problem is that people did fullquote, top-post and not read what I
had written in virtually /every/ mail over and over again.
Common sense will show that missing functions can be included.
Common sense shows, that nearly every function can be included in
Drupal. But it *has to be* included to start working with the CMS.
Common sense is also that you can add whatever you want to
silverstripe, by either adapting existing functionality or writing a
new module, so yes, that is no argument pro/against.
What count is what is workable.
And time is too short to discuss the features - we have to start
creating websites with whatever CMS will have been chosen.
The "features" have been laid out from the very, very beginning of the
Subject: CMS requirements / suitability testing
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:39:10 -0700
Also note the Subject "suitability testing" - that should also imply
that it is not just a demo, but a check whether it is suitable. And
for such a test you need to have a working demo.
Again: Why the heck did I - over and over and over and over again -
complain about the "official" demos of drupal, or the other cms
systems, why did I (again over and over and over again) asked the
drupal-savy people to create a *working* demo?
I'm puzzled as to how that topic can be not clear to those having been
actively participating (i.e. posting replies to the thread).
I understand that people like Bernhard or the SC members who couldn't
follow the whole exchange can be a little uncertain about the wording,
but I don't have words for those advocating drupal over and over
again, ignoring the content of my posts and now complaining about that
it wasn't clear that the "demo" should have been a "prototype".
A "demo" can only "demonstrate" what is included. If I remember Christian's
first mail right, he asked for a "working demo" to try out how the features
are working, where might be problems and what is easier to use for the
non-techy webpage editor.
Yes, and I didn't only write that in the initial mail, but really
almost in every single post to the list. In the first mail there might
have been questions on how far the "demo" vs "working demo" is to be
understood, but in the following it should have been dead straight
what is meant.
my post did start with
# Hi *,
# as the question "what cms to choose" now comes up more often, I think
# it's best to just setup some demo-sites to compare them.
# [list of the requirements I did think of]
and did end with:
# I can provide access to a staging installation soon, to check things out.
# I'd be happy if someone else could do this for drupal or whatever
# other CMS you think should be in the closer choice.
This is a prototype in my eyes - and with the time restrictions I think it
should be even more: A system that is easily to be switched to the live
Yes. More or less. What I didn't care about was visual appearance,
theming, etc, but the functionality to be there to test and compare.
But let's hear what Christian meant - and perhaps what André is heading for.
Sorry (esp to you Bernhard) if this mail sounds like ranting all over.
It kind of is, but surely not against those who did only follow it
with one eye.
Did you extend already the list with the features Christian missed in
I had a quick search in his mails and got:
Workflow system (request for publication and checked by others)
Comparison of different revisions (I only see "revert" and "delete")
Insertion of tables
Not yet added.
Have these all been included by now? I can't find them in the Drupal demo.
No, not even the basic editor functionality.
Others have been added (enabling headers, links for example).
Links not to my satisfaction. External links are no problem, but is
virtually impossible to create links to pages of the very same site.
The links are not tracked, that is when you rename that other site
(which can easily happen because the pagename is set to be
automatically generated from the title), the link on the page will
point to the old address. It will not create broken links, as drupal
setups duplicates/redirects with the old name, but still doesn't look
right, and even that aside, you need firstmost know the exact link of
the target page to be able to insert it. You cannot pick from a list,
you cannot browse nor search. You have to navigate to the page in
another broswer window and copy and paste the link.
While there is (of course, how could it be different) a
module/extension to allow for internal links, that is not enabled on
The module able to take care of changed internal links seems not to be
installed by now ...
And the WYSIWYG editor still doesn't offer a way to create tables (you
have to manually create them in the source).
All those annoyances that "of course can be fixed" are still there.
Despite the people having years of experience and whatnot with drupal.
(If I'm honest, that is what bothers me the most. Sure, time is
limited, mine of course as well, but still. If you work with drupal
for years, where is the problem to set it up in a user-friendly way?)
If Drupal is
picked, we have an abundance of committed webmaster help and training
Yes - by those people who didn't manage to set up a working demo yet.
And really: Those requirements are not rocket-science.
As if a real site would require less time to maintain and operate :-/
Thanks for the rest of the posting, which reflects my point of view as well.
E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
- Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy