On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:34:55AM -0500, Ben Stallings wrote: > I feel the need to speak up on a couple issues brought up by this thread: > > 1) I have found ZAP to be a very useful recipe, though its documentation > still needs work.
This is *very* helpful to know. > 3) I have achieved far more in the past months by working with Dan and > ZAP than I could have by creating my own recipe. I can only imagine how > great ZAP and Fox would be today if Hans could have stood to cooperate > with Dan and produce one recipe instead of two. FWIW, I don't see any issue with there being multiple recipes that do similar things. Sometimes there are multiple avenues to get at the same result, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. If someone chooses a different approach to solving a problem, we shouldn't fault him or her for that. > 3) I agree with Dan that speculations about the perceived instability of > ZAP need to be backed up by evidence; otherwise they are libel -- my > word, not Dan's. I think there have been too many unfounded speculations all around on this issue. It might also be better if people didn't take negative comments, even unsubstantiated ones, as major affronts. People are entitled to opinions, even incorrect ones. > 4) I applaud the recent name change to Acme. I think it's a much better > name than ZAP (or Fox, for that matter). Although many may question the motivation behind the name switch to Acme, I have to agree that it's likely a more appropriate name. It's certainly more fun. > 5) Although I was as dismayed and confused as anyone by the sudden name > change and by Dan's references to writing his own wiki engine, I find > Hans's allegations about Dan's motives totally inappropriate and > uncalled for. > [...] > So, my two cents: knock if off, Hans. I think this cuts many different ways here. I totally agree that Hans' allegations regarding Dan's motives (or at least the phrasing of them) were overreaching and likely uncalled for. On the other hand, Hans was not the first to question ZAP's stability [1], Dan's post [2] contains the first reference to Hans and other forms processing engines, and that post also makes an unsubstantiated comment that "[Acme] is more secure than other processors", which would be taken by many as a reference to Fox's security (and which Dan confirms in a later post). So in some ways I suspect Hans felt obligated to call out the inconsistencies in Dan's post, including the reason Dan gave HF for changing the name [3]. Things went downhill from there. All of this is to say that I think there's plenty of "knock it off" to go around for everyone, and let's please just move on to more constructive things. I'll issue my opinions regarding Cookbook summary lines and multiple recipe entries shortly. Pm [1] http://www.pmichaud.com/pipermail/pmwiki-users/2007-April/041861.html [2] http://www.pmichaud.com/pipermail/pmwiki-users/2007-April/041861.html [3] I'm not at all intending to imply here that Dan is wrong for changing the name, or that his stated reason for doing so is incorrect. _______________________________________________ pmwiki-users mailing list pmwiki-users@pmichaud.com http://www.pmichaud.com/mailman/listinfo/pmwiki-users
