Gerhard wrote, "No, no, and no. The "community" (I hate that word) is not the reason d'etre for Drupal or the reason why anybody would develop for it. The reason is to get stuff done for our own needs. You are free to use it, too. But that's it." Okay. I'm non-coder, but I do work with Drupal for my "own needs," and would suggest that here is part of the conflict which traces back to Liza's post. It all depends on your perspective of what is important about open source (or free software if that is your term). I've been doing lots of reasearch on open source lately, and IMHO, the idea that the community is unimportant and that the code is "free to use" is very short-sighted. In The Success of Open Source, Stephen Weber explains that “the essence of open source is not the software. It is the process by which software is created” (56). The licensing merely gives users rights. The fact that the open source product becomes available in a gift economy for everyone to use is not the end in itself, but rather the means to that end as Ilkka Tuomi pointed out in an article on First Monday, “open-source communities control the developmental dynamic of an evolving good. The 'openness' of open source, therefore, is more about open future than about access to currently existing source-code text” (442). So for those for whom Drupal is not just a short term solution for a client, but part of a long strategy for developing a successful consulting business (or other types of career advancement), the community is very important, and even the end users of which Liza speaks. Open source depends on collaboration--and as long as the workflow processes and organizational structure can handle it--increased growth in the community. End users play an important role in this. For every 100 new end users, there are 100 new people potentially marketing Drupal for those trying to build a client base. And out of those 100, there are probably at least a few who will contribute to development and increase the functionality of the product. Need further convincing? I sent the following statistics to Dries at the end of October. For anyone who's long term prosperity depends on Drupal's brand name succcess (and I think it does; IMHO, DeanSpace, for example, did a lot for advancing Drupal's community growth), consider the followiong statistics. I'm sure they haven't changed much in the last month. Are the perceptions represented there going to make a difference in everyone's current client work. Probably not. Is it going to affect most people's ability to build a larger client base and more successfuly consulting opportunities? Most definitely so. Charlie Lowe Check out the Google results on these phrase and term combinations: "Drupal sucks" 627 hits "Mambo sucks" 289 hits "PostNuke sucks" 341 hits "Plone sucks" 123 hits "Drupal is easy" 100 hits "Mambo is easy" 656 hits "PostNuke is easy" 117 hits "Plone is easy" 514 hits "Drupal is hard" 52 hits "Mambo is hard" 43 hits "PostNuke is hard" 5 hits "Plone is hard" 28 hits "Drupal is difficult" 280 hits "Mambo is difficult" 89 hits "PostNuke is difficult" 44 hits "Plone is difficult" 14 hits Now what's interesting are these keyword stats: Drupal usability 372,000 hits Mambo usability 338,000 hits PostNuke usability 82,900 hits Plone usability 147,000 hits A lot of talk about Drupal usability, but it seems that more needs to be accomplished to change public perception.