Do not pay attention to them, just ignore them.

I just started using b2evolution so I’m not too familiar with what is (was) going on. But anyway I agree with what you sad. Sometimes the opensource people are so busy on doing a perfect code(on theory) that they forget the users just want to use a software with as much features as possible. Sometimes a commercial approach to opensource is good.

I respect your opinion.
I only want to write a little comment: remember users want quality, stability and reliability too. “opensource people” only try to make good software, and usually more features affect this goal. The François’ approach is, IMHO simply the pragmatic (and correct) approach. I think it is not about commercial or free developers “mindset".

Regards.

I totally agree!

I’ve been using b2 from the very first version (0.4 or so) and it ist a fine tool. The community is great and til version 06 Michel did a great job with a lot of enhancements. I’ve watched and tested the other b2-forks, but b2evo is the only script which is working like it should: Import of old entries, nice enhancements (statistics, last comments, much better search function …), and, for new users of b2evo, the skins option.
The only thing that prevents me for now using it on my working server, is my missing luck of making a template or skin which can be shown and used with older Netscapes (4.x)
I think its the right way how Francois and the others have used the old b2!!!
Thanks a lot!

The reason I first wanted to rewrite b2 from the ground up was to have the ability to add features.
The sheer size, uncleanliness, useless duplication of code bits, and lack of in-the-source documentation made adding features much too annoying. It also lead to adding more bugs.
So I just couldn’t let it go on like that, just like I couldn’t go on developping it if it meant having to cope with the conceptionnal mistakes of what a newbie can do in php (the newbie being me… when I started coding b2 I had done less than 3 weeks of PHP, and that was really low scale PHP for my job).
And then, I took a big break. And I got a depression or two, which don’t have anything to do with b2 but which halted the support from me.

Code cleanliness is always a win-win situation in opensource projects: it means more developers can join the project and not feel alienated when ogling over the legacy code.
A fine example of it is Apple’s choice of the KHTML engine over the Gecko one for Safari. They chose KHTML simply because the code was cleaner and more easily extensible, even if it meant turning their back to Gecko’s wonderful rendering engine.

And last but not least, I’m saddened that you’re taking such an oppositional approach towards other b2 forks’ maintainers and their decisions. Can’t we all just get along? :)

Michel,

I do agree that code cleanliness is a good thing. How could I disagree? What I am saying, is that rewriting is not necessarily the best option over simply cleaning up.

I also do agree on the Safari example. However bear in mind that Apple chose KHTML because it actually was a fact that it was cleaner than Gecko, not because people said they were going to rewrite it cleaner someday.

Plus, the reason that made Apple choose KHTML for *development* purposes is pointless when users need to choose between *using* Safari vs. Gecko.

Regarding your opinion on my approach, let me assure you that I am not ranting at you nor the other forks’ maintainers but at those big mouths spreading their opinions on the subjects above all over the place without actually having a clue neither about b2evolution nor about software development.

It is everybody’s right to rewrite anything he fancies and to talk about it. Whatever their reasons I wouldn’t normally care, but this time I eventually got sick of people drawing ridiculous conclusions on all that and posting them in my sight :P