[development] One core, many distributions

Gerhard Killesreiter gerhard at killesreiter.de
Wed Nov 23 09:55:14 UTC 2005

Liza Sabater wrote:

> On Nov 21 2005, at 11:50, Chris Johnson wrote:
>> Liza seems to be saying "yes, Andre is the only one who thinks that  
>> way" but perhaps it was just sloppy use of English and she meant  
>> "yes, I agree with Andre."
> Heh.
> No, I did mean the first meaning.
> Don't get me wrong, I love most of the time how software developers  
> think. It's sexy, but just like a lot of sexy stuff out there, it has  
> somewhat to do with reality :)
> The way regular, non-software developers use Drupal seems to be very  
> different from the way you guys conceive of it. I personally do not  
> care about the url BUT the reality is that you will most likely get  
> faster indexing of your sites by bots --and better stumble upon  
> traffic-- if you have verbose links as opposed to those "node/ 
> doohickey/numbers" system. It's not your fault or the users, it's  
> just is. So having flexibility on how those links are created, right  
> off the bat, is what Drupal ought to be striving for.
> Look, someone did a really bad, and I mean, really HORRIDLY BAD call  
> when they decided to take out the sessions setting options for the  
> 4.6 release. It was in 4.5, my

That option was actually taken out long before. It might have been in 
4.4 but I think it was already removed there, at least if you are 
referring to the horrible little "remember me" checkbox.

> site never logged me out and it seemed  that a lot of people found it 
> useful as well. Not only did y'all take  it out, but it is nowhere 
> stated in your documentation that this was  taken out. And not only 
> did you take it out but, guess what, a lot of  people have grumbled 
> about this on the support list (or so it seems),

Yes, was great fun.

>   because it was not announced nor was there an option offered to 
> deal  with potential log-out problems. I had 5 people look at this 
> problem  on my site and one of them came across this story by diving 
> into your  support archives. And you did changes to the RSS system as 
> well, and  not for the good of the user but for the good of your 
> geekatude.

You show us that you ain't no clue.

> Rule #1 : If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Teh horrible little checkbox thing was broken, that is why it was removed.

> You broke so many rules about market strategy, usability and software  
> development, I can't even fathom how you came to the conclusion this  
> was a good idea. Then again, yes, I can fathom the logic just by the  
> discussion we are having here.

A discussion? You are biting the hand that codes your software. Very bad 

> You think about the beauty of the code, the simplicity of your   
> logic. That's nice and good. The problem is that it has nothing to do  
> with reality. You are not thinking about the users --you are not  
> really trying to find real world solutions for the people who are  
> actually going to implement the product.

Right. Why on earth should we? Why should we give a damn about any of 
your problems? They are your problems after all, not ours.

> Why does this have to be an either or set-up? Why not add pathauto to  
> the core and give it as an option for people to implement during  
> installation? 

Because we have many users that already whine about not being able to 
LOCK their tables and us evil developers using such a feature. because 
people insist on using hoisters that charge them 5 of whatever currency 
and the people still expect they can run kick-ass software with kick-ass 
features on their el-cheapo hosting.

> It is sloppy thinking to say you know better because  you are a 
> developer. Earth to

No, it is just right. We know better because we simply know our 
software, the software it depends on, and so on. We are the Gods, you 
are the dust on our feet.

> geeks : Software development is never  ending, it is never done. You 
> will never be satisfied ---treat your  skill as a disease not as a 
> gift. You do not have to release 4.7 ---- you are JONESING for a new 
> coding high. And in the process,  undermining many a vendor, web admin 
> and end user by pushing into  obsolescence their just installed site.

Again, why should we care?

> If you have to release 4.7, go ahead and do it. But make sure that it  
> is as flexible and user centric as possible so that you can stop,  
> stand back and think of what better ways to implement the product as  
> opposed to just talk about code as art. For that, there is always  
> bitforms gallery [ www.bitforms.com ] and software and net art lists  
> sites like Rhizome [ www.rhizome.org ] and The Thing [www.thing.net ].

You really, really have no clue. You should be a specimen at the no-clue 

> Best,
> liza, who's been on the software art scene for far too long, sabater

Liza, I think we've had enough of you. Please close the door - from the 

More information about the development mailing list