[consulting] Drupal considerd dangerous

[Gerhard Killesreiter]

Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Kieran Lal wrote:
>>> There are no qualifications or "it's not always the best choice" type
>>> honest comments anywhere to be found.
>>>     
>> By targeting specific uses we tried to highlight it's strengths.   
>> Highlighting weaknesses is not very useful as it's frequently the  
>> limitations of the users ability to use a tool that are the real  
>> weakness.
>>   
> Well, there we have it: "There are no weaknesses in Drupal, just 
> weaknesses in users' ability to master it."
> 
> You have me at a loss for words, I honestly have no answer to something 
> so incredibly arrogant.

And I haven't even said anything yet. .p

>>> Small businesses are explicitly mentioned as a target group for whom
>>> Drupal is the right answer.
>>> In fact, the page offers no realistic appraisal of what Drupal doesn't
>>> do well, which is also what people coming to such a page are  
>>> looking for.
>>>     
>> What do you suggest?
>>   
> The kind of honesty that Bill suggested. An acknowledgement that Drupal 
> isn't for everyone, and a frank analysis of its advantages and 
> drawbacks.

The problem is that it is hard to see what is an advantage for somebody 
and what a drawback. It might be reversed for somebody else.

> Respect for users' intelligence rather than contempt.
> Emphasis on understanding what users need, rather than what you expect 
> of them.

Users often don't understand what they need, how should we?

I think the page in question is rather well written. For most of the 
examples given it is listed that you need site-developer skills.

I'd however take out the blogging example. Drupal is not for bloggers. 
These people expect a turn-key solution which Drupal currently does not 
offer. Maybe it could be changed to "corporate blogging" or "group 
blogging" and given a higher level of expertise needed.

Cheers,
	Gerhard