rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a "good example". a Good Example would be a link to wordpress.org, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.
there's a reason the blogroll hasn't been updated since 1.2 (i can't be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he's leaving it there as a mistake he's not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it's valid. so no, it isn't providing credit to the developer community. it's providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.
his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it's hard to get from his post that he's not equating pligg with vanilla.
JaredB
· 2 years ago
I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.
Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.
The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason.
Charleen
· 2 years ago
Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth. Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying. I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments. Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)
All Comments
rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a "good example". a Good Example would be a link to wordpress.org, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.
there's a reason the blogroll hasn't been updated since 1.2 (i can't be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he's leaving it there as a mistake he's not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it's valid. so no, it isn't providing credit to the developer community. it's providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.
his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it's hard to get from his post that he's not equating pligg with vanilla.
Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.
The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)