[consulting] Drupal considerd dangerous

[Khalid B]

On 12/26/06, Michael Haggerty <mhaggerty at trellon.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> If 4.6 was a 'weak' release and businesses were not able to operate on it
> effectively, please explain the Onion's Web site. Wasn't it built on
> Drupal
> 4.6, and isn't it in the top 1% sites on the Internet in terms of traffic?
> If Drupal 4.6 was appropriate for the industrial strength needs of a high
> traffic site, how come it was not appropriate for these startups? What
> were
> these startups looking to do that exceeded the Onion's needs?


I have to somewhat agree with this. A site I helped built is still on 4.6,
and
has a very high traffic rank on Alexa.

The owner has been approached by one of the largest publishers in that
market segment, and they are discussing a deal for the site to be acquired.

What makes the site unique, and why it is being bought, is its content and
success (as measured in building a community and generating traffic).

Drupal helped make it successful, but is by no means the only reason for its

success.

That being said, 4.7 FormAPI is a quantum leap for the reasons Kieran
stated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20061226/21d16a67/attachment.htm