[consulting] Drupal considerd dangerous

[Kaliya *]

On 12/26/06, Kieran Lal <kieran at civicspacelabs.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The web 2.0 bubble has been in play for at least three years.  I
> suspect that many of these start-ups that were hurt were early
> adopters and picked Drupal in 4.5 or 4.6.  In particular, the 13
> month release cycle of Drupal 4.7 meant that companies that started
> on Drupal 4.6 or Drupal head in September 2005 did not have the
> ability to use the Forms API to override things.  In many cases, it
> may have made sense to hack core to satisfy a client or CEO in 4.6 or
> Drupal Head pre-forms API.



I think you are close to being right on.  These companies have been in
business for at least 18 months. That is developing and at some point
releasing. Once they started on one version (4.5, or 4.6) They can't afford
to 'upgrade' to the next one. Cause tehy have put so much money in to
hacking it.


> When we hear these complaints about Drupal we are thinking about what
> Drupal can do in 5.0.  Not what Drupal was doing 20 months ago when
> that start-ups burn rate was $50-100K a month and Drupal 4.7 was no
> where in sight.  I suspect that for Drupal failures to become common
> knowledge that these technology choices were probably made 20 months
> ago, Drupal didn't meet expectation, and business funds weren't able
> to recover from the expenditures made.



Yep.


I hope that provides some context.
>
> With that said, we now have to admit our past weaknesses and market
> how our new strengths can over come, to ensure significant investment
> continues to be made in Drupal as a platform.


It will be a while before I trust the platform. Until then best of luck.

=Kaliya
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20061226/5f7f6455/attachment.htm