[TYPO3-typo3org] Consolidate - don't divide?

Dmitry Dulepov dmitry at typo3.org
Fri Oct 20 10:02:38 CEST 2006


Alex Heizer wrote:
> It's well-known that for a time Microsoft ran a set of UNIX mail servers 
> until they came up with a robust-enough Windows solution to meet their 
> needs.

Yes and Hotmail used Unix _for_some_time_ but was finally migrated to 

> So, yes, it happens. That's exactly my point. Use what works 
> until the functionality is there. And a wiki, mailing list or forum are 
> not "cms".

No doubt :)

> Again, my point. A CMS *could* have version control, bug tracking, etc., 
> so why not use TYPO3 for that?

Because typo3 does not have these two. It has wiki but we use mediawiki 
because there were no timtaw at that moment. However we use timtab and 
not wordpress at buzz.typo3.org because we have timtab.

 > Currently for the tools which are being
> used that are not in TYPO3, there exists no comparable equivalent in 
> TYPO3.

I belive there is CHC forum. I never used it, may be it is not good enough.

I have nothing against 3-rd party bug trackers, version control, etc. 
However I am against 3rd party *cms* on any typo3 site. Again: I am only 
and only and only and ... against another cms. That's all. I am not 
against KB software (because we have no such in typo3) or bug tracker 
(because we do not have it either).

> If your feet are too slow, you choose a bicycle while you take up 
> jogging so that you can improve your speed. If TIMTAW doesn't meet the 
> needs of the community, improve it but continue to use what *can* 
> provide what you need until that time.

You know, it is much easier to improve product when it is used. 
Otherwise why improve it at all? It is simple: if people use something, 
they tend to improve it. If they are happy with anther software, why 
they may want to improve something else? Most likely they even will have 
no idea that something should be improved. Things to improve always come 
from real life usage.

> In other words, which is more preferable?
> 1. Providing *no* solution while we wait for "someone" to code it?
> or
> 2. Providing a solution during the interim so that at least we have 
> something while we wait for it to be available in TYPO3?

2 of course. But this again is totally different thing that I am talking 
about :)

To stress: can we use Joomla on typo3.org if Joomla provides something 
that we need but do not have in typo3? Yes or no? :)

Dmitry Dulepov

Web: http://typo3bloke.net/
Skype: callto:liels_bugs

"It is our choices, that show what we truly are,
far more than our abilities." (A.P.W.B.D.)

More information about the TYPO3-team-typo3org mailing list