[support] questions

[Larry Garfield]

On Sunday 12 March 2006 16:06, Mohammed al-shar' wrote:
> larry,
> thanks for answering. I do think some clerification is needed:
> in my second point I didn't mean to sound that firy, and I don't think
> anyone would get here if he / she doesn't already understand the spirit of
> open source software. I was trying to make the point, that unlike other
> open source cms, drupal isn't so much focused in intigrating some basic
> modules in the distribution. how can you explain this policy? may be you
> core developers have some inlightening thoughts. in what ways does drupal
> try to be different from other cms systems? I am just seeking knowledge, no
> fights are needed. I already use drupal alot and is a big fan, and so no
> flaming is meant. 

It's a question that we've been getting more and more as Drupal has exploded 
in popularity in the past year, so a lot of people have gotten sensitive to 
it. :-)  Lots of people "get here" without understanding the first thing 
about open source development.

Also, I should clarify that I'm not a major core developer.  I work on core at 
times and have gotten some code in, but I'm very much one of the "little 
people" at this point.  

That said, Drupal isn't a CMS in the sense of something like Mambo.  It's not, 
nor is it designed to be, a fully-polished drop-in-and-go glitzy CMS.  Drupal 
is sort of half CMS, half application framework.  A LOT of work goes into the 
underlying technology and plumbing that enables higher-level stuff to be done 
by contrib modules rather than actually building those contrib modules.  
That's left for the next layer up of developers and users.  There are one or 
two Drupal offshoots like CivicSpace that do ship a more "polished" version 
of Drupal.  Think Debian vs. Ubuntu. :-)

As for the current list of what's in core, I couldn't tell you the specific 
reasoning behind them as  that's before my time.  I do know that the 
direction people seem to want to push is to have *fewer* modules in core by 
default, but make it easier to install contrib modules.  That allows for much 
leaner, customized installs tailored to the needs of an individual site.

Drupal's "big people" have also had a backward-compatibility policy of 
"Backward what?"  Rather than make 4.7 compatible with 4.6 modules, 4.7 is 
the best that 4.7 can be and then includes well-honed scripts (still being 
honed <g>) to upgrade a 4.6 site to 4.7.  Modules can then be upgraded when 
their developers get to it, but they have to get to it.  There are pros and 
cons to that attitude, a discussion I am not going to get into at the 
moment. :-)

> as for registration, well, I already know that, but the 
> trouble is that many users would register and never come back to the sight,
> but their accounts would still be active. I saw a module specific for 4.7
> which automatically band users who exceeds some set time. I am still using
> 4.65 and I think I'd stick to it until somebody voulenteers to make goofy a
> php templet theme. again, thanks for taking the time to answer.
> regards,

I couldn't tell you about goofy.  One probably could make a similar module for 
4.6 without a great deal of difficulty, although I've not looked into it in 
depth.  If that modules does what you need, my guess is it could be back 
ported without an enormous hassle.  That's something you'd have to ask its 
developer about, who may or may not be interested in doing so himself.

-- 
Larry Garfield			AIM: LOLG42
larry at garfieldtech.com		ICQ: 6817012

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of 
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, 
which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to 
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession 
of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."  -- Thomas 
Jefferson