On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM, John VanDyk <<a href="mailto:jvandyk@iastate.edu">jvandyk@iastate.edu</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">At 1:29 PM +0200 4/28/08, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Drupal is now a mature project and people start to rely on it for<br>
projects that have a longer life span than the release process of<br>
Drupal.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
My understanding is that these kind of people are the target market for Acquia's commercially supported Carbon distribution.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>John's comment goes to the heart of the question.<br>
<br>
I think the security is admirable in Drupal. I want to remove that
entirely from the discussion, because moving target or not, we have the
best security we could possibly have.<br>
<br>
But I think the central policy point worth discussing is: in order to
obtain a Drupal capable of actually being used in the real world for
production sites, must one be forced to opt for commerical products /
versions because the real cost is enormous?<br>
<br>
I use Ubuntu, the free, open source, off-the-shelf release, and I am not forced to pay for a "Red Hat" version to rely upon it.<br>
<br>
The question being raised is this: Is Drupal being driven to be such a
fast moving target that real time-to-market costs can only be afforded
by large shops?<br>
<br>
If the answer were yes, then we are forced to examine whether
economic/financial/corporate interests are at work pushing it in that
direction.<br>
<br>
Instead of sweeping the issue under the carpet.<br><br>Victor Kane<br><a href="http://awebfactory.com.ar">http://awebfactory.com.ar</a><br>