[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS


Hi Benjamin, *,

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Benjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Benjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 18, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Benjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
> Those who have said this were envisioning far more complex sites than I believe you were
> imagining. To replicate the current static site will not require a great deal of configuration
> whatsoever.

I know I'm repeating myself, but still the drupal site doesn't cut it.
You canot create structured documents with headings for example.

Yes, I know, this is "just a configuration setting"; but despite admin
logins being available know, nobody took the time to add it, despite
so many drupal people advocating it here on the list.

>>> I don't think the onus is on everyone to prove to you personally that Drupal is best suited
>>
>> No, not to me personally. Me included, but not exclusively to me. So
>> far only the ones that maintain a drupal site themselves are in favor
>> or drupal, the users didn't really had a chance to make up their mind
>> yet. (And those who were and tried out silverstripe, prefer
>> silverstripe over the current drupal demo)
>
> I think this is not a valid comparison, unfortunately,

Well, that's the only we have, and again I reiterate: That's why I
want a usable drupal demo.

> until after Keith shared full admin credentials to his demo late this afternoon (Tuesday).
> At that point, several people seemed more supportive of Drupal.

No, I don't think so. Not more supportive of Drupal vs Silverstripe at
least. (no longer not taking drupal into serious consideration, that
yes, but no switch of opinions visible in my eyes yet)

> This is good, but you're not the only one who has been active this long. Further, new
> contributors can also provide fresh new ideas that should be weighed on their merits, not
> based on their newness to the project. Finally, at the moment, you seem to be shouting the
> loudest while covering your ears to my suggestions.

Now it is getting personal and unfair.
Where have I been covering my ears to suggestions?

I *begged* you to setup a drupal site to be able to compare them, and
all what you (and other drupal folks) did was to praise the abilities,
complain about lack of time to setup a site that fullfilss those
*basic* requirements. You wrote above more or less that setting up a
site like laid out in those requirements would be a piece of cake, not
take much effort, yet I fail to see noteworthy results.
Again: I'd never recommend a site like the drupal demo as it is now.

And again I stress that it is not because I'm convinced that you
cannot do it with drupal.

You have the time to write all those mails that take a significant
amount of time, but you didn'f find the time to turn the druapl site
into something usable that would not suck.

*you* (not you alone) are advocating drupal, *you* are the ones who
are trying to convince me (and others) to consider drupal.

So it is up to *you* to prove that drupal can do it.

>> [...]
>> It just doesn't fit the usecase of the website. (And I take the
>> current OOo website as reference here, since I expect the organization
>> and use to be very, very similar)
>
> It fits the usecase of the website very well. Please explain what you think is missing?

Basic editing capabilities. A editor where you cannot even create
headings is a joke.

An editor that doesn't allow to create links to other pages on the
same site is a joke.

An editor that doesn't allow creation of tables is a joke.

The list with those annoyances goes on.

Are you /really/ suggesting that the demo as it is now is usable?

>> What do you mean with dynamic activities?
>
> Allowing site members to create content, working groups, discussions and comments, and similar actions.

How would silverstripe lack that?

> Would you buy the first car or house that you saw? Why the first CMS?

Depends. I look at the prospectus (the corresponding websites),
doesnt' convince me. I give it a test ride (drupal demo), and it feels
like driving a tractor. So yes, I go with the car that I first saw:
The prospectus is clear, doesn't lie about the extras (or lack
thereof), gives a decent driving experience and looks slick.

So you would go for the tractor based on that information?

>>> [...]
> Now that Keith's demo is available, please take another look using the admin credentials. It surely works.

works is highly subjective.

Again the question: Do you think the drupal site as it is configured
*now* works?

ciao
Christian

--
E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.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

Follow-Ups:
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSKeith Williams <kwilliams@thoughtfarmproductions.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSKeith Williams <kwilliams@thoughtfarmproductions.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSMarc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
References:
[libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMS"Andre Schnabel" <Andre.Schnabel@gmx.net>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] [SC] Decision about CMSBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.