[drupal-docs] Drupal vs Mambo

[Morbus Iff]

> I also think I'm seeing a trend that those that see Drupal primarily as 
> a content management system are more likely to see "social software" as 
> an empty buzzword. I hope no one takes this personally when I say this, 
> but we need to focus on whether or not those that see Drupal as mainly a 
> community-building/collaborative tool think of social software as a 
> useful term since it's that audience which the term targets.

Well, here's my take on it, really. Five years ago, when weblogs barely 
even existed popularly, and "content management system" was a big scary 
word that usually meant tens of thousands of dollars (and was only 
recently, in 2000, becoming an area that "normal" people could explore), I 
joined a "cms-list" that has since disappeared from the web:

   http://www.google.com/search?&q=cms+list+morbus+iff

Back then, a lot of people felt that "content management system" was an 
empty buzzword, mainly because so few people could define what it strictly 
was, what they allowed, and what they were supposed to "do" - in fact, 
under very early definitions, Drupal would NOT be considered a CMS because 
it doesn't have any workflow by default: there's no way for me to "edit" 
something, "send it back" to the writer, receive a new "revision", pass it 
on to a "copyeditor", who in turn would pass it on to a "designer" who 
would lay down image blocks, and then pass it on to a "photographer" who 
would stick the photos in, then dub it "finished" for a "web master" to 
approve and actually make live.

Today, there's still not much cohesion: I, for one, don't consider regular 
blog software (like Wordpress) a content management system, and am between 
maybe/maybenot on Movable Type.

The "verbose" definition of "social software", from Clay Shirky:

   1. Social software treats triads of people differently than pairs.
   2. Social software treats groups as first-class objects in the system.

Doesn't apply to Drupal. Drupal has no built in and public "groups" 
feature: the closest is user roles which are magical and mystical backend 
systems. Even making those public doesn't do anything "extra" for users - 
they're just a member of a group, whooptidoo - it's a side-effect NOT a 
"first-class object". Because of this, IRC would be a social software (as 
individuals are "grouped" together by channels, and further grouped by 
what network they choose) whereas IM isn't (most folks who use IM don't 
realize, or bother to use, AIM chatrooms, Yahoo! IMvironments; I don't 
believe ICQ has anything).

However, Clay more recently prefers the simpler:

   "software that supports group interaction"

which is so flipping generic that it entails this conversation. Our email 
client is "social software" because we're using it to communicate as a 
group on a special mailing list, and we're further "grouped" based on the 
subject thread.

This is just obscene, and makes "social software" so generic that you can 
justify a reason for *any* piece of software to be labeled as such, just 
because it's the newest, grandest, and most generic buzzword - the *same* 
damn way that content management systems were years and years ago. Ever 
used Microsoft Word? It has an editing feature where multiple people can 
edit one document, all users can see their edits, Yes/No them, and folks 
can add individual notes on why the changes were needed. Under Clay's most 
recent definition, *that* is social software too, as is a wiki, a single 
website which five people modify through FTP transfers, and a conference 
call on the phone.

With enough effort, anything can apply to those principles, and the short 
end of the stick becomes: everything is social software, just like 
EVERYTHING can be a content management system (hell, email is a content 
management system because I have drafts, I can forward data off to another 
user, I can track revisions and discussions, I can store data forever, I 
can filter it according to my current needs, blah blah blah).

I think, however, the term "content management system" has some sort of 
"base" instinct on what one actually is: it's "more" than a piece of blog 
software, "more" than an email client, "more" than the Finder or Windows 
Explorer. Conversely, I don't think "social software" has that "base" 
instinct yet - it's the latest and greatest "hip" thing - everyone is 
applying the term to anything just to get more eyeballs, which is exactly 
what a buzzword	is (and is the way I've used it in these discussions):

    1. A word or phrase connected with a specialized field or
       group that usually sounds important or technical and
       is used primarily to impress laypersons: “‘Sensitivity’
       is the buzzword in the beauty industry this fall” (ADWEEK).

    2. A stylish or trendy word or phrase.

-- 
Morbus Iff ( you are nothing without your robot car, NOTHING! )
Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
O'Reilly Author, Weblog, Cook: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779
icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus