21–30 of 63 posts
Akismet makes money for Automattic / Matt. Comment spam is terrible and will continue to get worse. Decent alternatives exist. Increasing the visibility of Akismet should help increase revenue. This is 100% a financial move.
I went looking earlier this year and found nothing even close to Akismet on a price-to-effectiveness basis.
>Automattic-sponsored core committer Jorge Costa >Fueled-sponsored core committer Peter Wilson >Bluehost-sponsored core committer Jonathan Desrosiers >Human Made-sponsored core committer John Blackbourn This is a terrifying way to describe people.
Akismet makes money for Automattic / Matt. Comment spam is terrible and will continue to get worse. Decent alternatives exist. Increasing the visibility of Akismet should help increase revenue. This is 100% a financial move.
What are those decent alternatives to Akismet? I went looking earlier this year and found nothing even close to Akismet on a price-to-effectiveness basis.
https://wordpress.org/plugins/honeypot/
/r/wordpress will probably have others.
Akismet makes money for Automattic / Matt. Comment spam is terrible and will continue to get worse. Decent alternatives exist. Increasing the visibility of Akismet should help increase revenue. This is 100% a financial move.
What are those decent alternatives to Akismet? I went looking earlier this year and found nothing even close to Akismet on a price-to-effectiveness basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Business objectives should override engineering policies when the two are in conflict, at least if you're a business owner who wants to make money. This bush league kind of attitude is why people insinuate that most software development is not "real engineering". When Boeing or NASA lets making money get in the way of good engineering practice, people die.
"died in a blogging accident"
Maybe someone will put LLMs on Wordpress and make a new backwards compatible one.
Ok, I think Matt’s goofy for various reasons. From just what this article says, I think he’s right on this one. This is my understanding of it: * The dev team has a disagreement about putting one of the company’s own projects on the available plugins carousel or whatever inside their main product. * They eventually decide not to. * The CEO says “this has been an important part of our product for 20 years. It’s silly…
Leaving out the optics and personalities and internal politics, the biggest issue I see is that they added this during the RC phase, which is against their policy. It should have been pushed to 7.1.
It says a lot about what's been going on in the Wordpress ecosystem lately that I had never heard of Mullenweg before maybe a year or two ago, and now I immediately see his name and think "What's he done this time?" Probably very frustrating for many people who actually use the platform, but as someone who doesn't, it's almost morbidly fascinating watching the continued drama and wondering if and when any of it ends…
But what did he do this time, though? I don't understand it very well, but it sounds like they made an anti-spam solution the default? That is good, right? WP gets a lot of spam.
In a vacuum, probably not a huge deal, and maybe for people who actually use WP the idea that this is basically something up to a judgment call makes sense. At least from my outside perspective, it sounds a bit like what's on the default page is basically being left up to the whim of the CEO without any real concrete explanation, which would be mildly concerning even if the CEO wasn't someone who's been making the news a lot the past couple years from getting into pissing matches with competitors, causing 8.4% of his employees to take a blanket offer to leave: https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/automattic-workers-quit-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Business objectives should override engineering policies when the two are in conflict, at least if you're a business owner who wants to make money. This bush league kind of attitude is why people insinuate that most software development is not "real engineering". When Boeing or NASA lets making money get in the way of good engineering practice, people die.
> most software development is not "real engineering". Most software development doesn't have anywhere near the real world impact of the Boeing/NASA engineering you reference. Good engineering practice recognizes the risks and scales the effort to match it. A CRUD app for internal users has a different set of requirements than a revenue generating SaaS app, just like a backyard fence has different building criteria t…
But being a professional means you do the thing even when the stakes are low. You don't decide to cut corners because you feel like it, or because it's more profitable. Mullenweg is not professional.