On 8 Feb 2004, at 17:22, Boris Kraft wrote:
On 08.02.2004, at 17:09, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
AFAIK we do not claim to be JCR compliant
From the Magnolia web site (http://www.obinary.com/en/magnolia.html):
<quote src="http://www.obinary.com/en/magnolia.html";> Magnolia in a nutshell
Magnolia is the first open-source content-management-system (CMS) which adheres to the upcoming standard of Java content repositories (JCR).
[...]
</quote>
This is a damn lie!
Harsh words, Stefano.
True, these are harsh words. I choose them on purpose because I don't use them very often, but there are things that require them. And this looked like one of them.
I am personally responsible for that line. But it is no lie, because it states that the standard is upcoming, so that clearly means that it is not there yet.
Then say it loud on clear or don't mention JCR at all.
What you are first to adhere to is a pre-alpha 0.7 version of the API which is now at version 0.9.5 and strongly different from what you have (including radical non-compatible changes at the very core interfaces).
But, of course, that would scare all your potential users away so you choose to reshape reality a little, hoping that people are stupid enough to buy the fact that you can be adhering to a technology you don't even have access to!!!
As I stated before, most of our users have no idea what JCR is, nor do they care.
Then, if this is the case, you won't have any problem removing it from your promotion and description of what Magnolia is.
Note to people: Obinary is *NOT* part of the JSR170 expert group, nor part of the JCP, therefore has no access to the JSR170 spec and doesn't know what has been changed.
You are stating the false and you are promoting yourself with the work of others, giving a false impression that might damange other open source projects that might choose to implement the *REAL* JCR API once is finished. (Slide, to cite one)
And this is pissing me off to no end.
I see. Whenever asked, we stated that we are using the JCR-RI (again, not many people care), and that the RI is part of Slide proposals. I am not aware that we state anything false nor that we promote ourself with the work of others. However, open source lives by the fact that one can use what others have built. "I am just a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants". Thats why we build these things, after all. So that people use it.
It was Slide's mistake to make that code available so it is not your fault that you are using that code. This is *not* what is pissing me off.
What is pissing me off is that you are promoting yourself with this and you have no moral rights to do so, especially since you are stating the false (you can rephrase as much as you want, but there is no such thing as "adherence to an upcoming standard", in my book that's call marketing abuse).
You will understand pretty soon how impossible it is to create a development community around a commercial product, even if the source is open.
Magnolia is no commercial product. It is open source, and it is free. I am sure there are things that could be better about Magnolia, and you as much as everybody else are very much invited to make that happen. But I rather spend time with my kids than shedding tears if it is impossible to create a developer community around Magnolia.
Well, then look around: how many projects managed to successfully create a healthy and diverse development community when hosted in a commercial web site?
I'll make it easy for you since I've done this research already: none! and all those who tried failed.
I don't see how Obinary can do better than this.... but of course, you are welcome to spend years trying to prove me wrong.
What I'm concerned about is the impression that people will have taking a look at your code, thinking that *that* is JCR and making an architectural choice based on your false and misleading marketing advertising.
As Magnolia comes with a double-clickable installer, everybody can make his decisions based on the product, not on marketing bla.
you are telling me that you base your technical decision on the click-thru license that code comes with? interesting. But I don't think that applies to many other people on the planet.
The reason why I was giving away the spec to almost everybody who asked was exactly to reduce the damange that you might have already done, especially since you somehow managed to get into the Apple Newsletter and got exposed to people who are not aware of the situation, nor read this mail list.
Would you be so kind and send me a copy as well? I would love to "limit that damage" as much as you do.
I sent a copy to the people that gravitated around Slide and might be interested in a JCR implementation in Slide. Do you fit in that category? (seriously curious, not implying anything)
... The result is, that we have released a CMS that has shown that the JCR-API (even at .8) is useful. I hope that this has been helpful to somebody.
This has been useful to you only and the cost of damanging other people's hard work.
The word "abuse" might not be precise, but it's the first that comes to mind.
...
Sure, and you choose to use somebody else's work, without giving credits, misleading your users and potentially damaging the face of the upcoming API.
I am sorry to hear that this is the way you feel about these issues. If you are "pissed off" about Magnolia, you are welcome to talk to me off list - I feel we are wasting other peoples lives by discussing them here.
I don't think we are wasting people time here: we are making them aware of what's going on and this is always a good thing.
I think that people need to hear both sides of the story before being able to make a decision and your web site is only telling one.
-- Stefano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
