Drupal, according to their own assessment, powers about 1% of the Work Wide Web. The Drupalistas estimate that WordPress accounts for just north of 8%. There is another system called Joomla that is roughly even with Drupal. These three look to be the survivors in the Great-Web-site-in-a-box sweepstakes.

Honestly, I was a little surprised that Drupal considered WordPress to be a competitor. Sure, they both want to be used for more and more of the Web, but does Lego consider Tonka to be a competitor? Here’s the deal: Drupal says WordPress is the most popular Content Management System (CMS). I say WordPress is not a CMS at all.

That’s not to say WordPress isn’t a fine tool, in fact, this blog uses WordPress. But would I use WordPress for my current paying gig? No. Honestly I dread the day when WordPress becomes a big, fancy CMS like Drupal. That’s not what it’s for. There is a reason WordPress is the big dog, and it’s not because you can build sophisticated Web applications with it, it’s because you can install WordPress, find a nice skin, and get your stuff on the Web in an attractive and intuitive way. WordPress is a publishing platform, and a pretty good one at that.

Drupal, on the other hand, begins to shine at the next level up in terms of sophistication. It is the Lego to WordPress’ Tonka. There is considerably more design up front, and much critical functionality must be added as external modules that don’t come with the main (“core”) code. (Some of these things will be added to core in Drupal 7.) Maintenance of a Drupal site is more labor-intensive as well, as updating the parts is more complicated than with WordPress.

In exchange for the added complexity, you get a lot more flexibility. That’s not to say that WordPress can’t be used to make sophisticated Web sites, but generally speaking WordPress is optimized in putting a defined sort of information (like blog posts) on the screen in a very flexible way. There are hundreds of ways to add other pre-defined data types (for instance, there are shopping cart plugins), and all that works really well and most people are going to be happy with that.

Drupal is the tool you use when the data types in WordPress won’t do it for you. In Drupal you are building a Web application, where with WordPress you are using a Web application. Step one in building a site with Drupal is designing the data and the relationships between the various data types. Drupal allows you to design your data without having to design your database. Some of the ways Drupal implements your data design are pretty hokey, but it works. You can create pretty sophisticated data models without knowing a thing about how a database works – or even what kind of database you’re using. (In fact, you’re better off not knowing how the data is structured, because things can move unexpectedly as you tweak your design.) You are also presented with an almost dizzying set of options to decide who is allowed to see, edit, or create each little piece of each data type you define.

Once you get your content types defined, then you can move on to how to get actual content into the system (handled pretty much automatically), and how to present specific subsets of your data on the screen. To get at the data one often uses views, which are built using a tool that generates (frustratingly limited) database queries and then processes the results with a gratifying set of options tailored to each data type.

Then it comes time to put stuff on the screen. To control where things go and when, there are regions, blocks, panels, panes, pages, and so forth in a nonintuitive overlapping of roles. Blocks and regions and pages are built in, but the profusion of other options is a testament to the limited way they work together. For all the flexibility of Drupal, GUI building is still clumsy, though getting better (I’m told).

At last we come to the task of making the output pretty. For this purpose Drupal uses a maze of performance-sucking php template files that are invoked using a system of names that allows one to set up the display of information at just about any level of granularity. Many of these templates go hand-in-hand with specially-named preprocessor functions that allow you to customize how data is prepared for presentation.

Drupal separated the preparation of data and the presentation of data to allow people with different skill sets to do the different tasks. The template files can be done with only a minimal amount of php, while the preprocessors are where the real logic is implemented, unencumbered by HTML and CSS. This also has the effect of putting the risky code out of reach of those who aren’t expert in Web security. All good things.

I used the phrase “performance-sucking” above, and I meant it. The designers of Drupal made a conscious decision to emphasize good architecture and flexibility over fast execution. This was the same decision Google faced a few years back, as they developed ever-more-sophisticated pattern matching algorithms. While competitors kept things simple to reduce server load, the folks at Google decided that the cost of processing cycles and storage was tending toward free, and chose to emphasize the quality of the information they provided instead. Similarly, Drupal has decided to make things in a structurally sound way and spend the processor cycles and disk reads necessary to support that.

Drupal 7 will be even slower, but will be more scalable (they say). What that means is that although the software is not as fast as it could be, its behavior is predictable as demand increases, and it is easer to scale up your site as things go huge. Good structure pays greater and greater dividends as things get bigger.

All that stuff Drupal has makes it a more complicated to get up and running, and for a simple site (or even one of moderate complexity but with a relatively straightforward data model), WordPress is going to get you to the promised land with a lot less pain.

I am led to believe that the WordPress community feels it needs to compete with Drupal just as much as Drupal thinks they need to compete with WordPress. Toward this end WordPress 3.0 will have new features that answer some of Drupal’s flexibility advantages. All I can say is “PLEASE, WordPress, don’t try to be everything Drupal is.” That WordPress is not everything Drupal is constitutes its greatest advantage. Stay with your market, WordPress!

Once I arrived and registered, I looked over the program to decide which seminars I would attend. I looked down the list and realized I already knew what most of the seminars were discussing. Some of the seminars, I could have been the presenter. I realized that the cross-section of stuff I know about Drupal probably qualifies me as a Drupal expert now.

Still, there’s always new stuff to learn. I decided to dedicate my day to security. There are a lot of ways to break a Web site these days.

Before the security sessions there was the keynote address by the guy who invented Drupal in his dorm room in Antwerp ten years ago. He is still holder of the vision for the project, and hearing him speak I have to say that the project is in good hands. He knows there are challenges ahead, and he was an excellent cheerleader for open source, and for encouraging everyone who uses Drupal to give back to the community. Currently they are trying to release the next major upgrade, something they absolutely must have, and soon (more on that in a bit). “There are 114 critical bugs to fix,” he said (or something like this), “If we break into teams right now we can have them fixed by the end of the day. So, we’re locking the doors…”

There was a laugh, but his point was a good one. Rather than wait eagerly for the release, the Drupal community should be actively making it happen.

He also mentioned that 1% of the Web is now powered by Drupal. That’s pretty dang impressive (until you compare it to WordPress). It’s difficult to call his methods for estimating that 1% as scientific, but whatever that number is, I can tell you that it could be a lot higher except for one thing: This software induces more WTF? moments than any other development platform I’ve ever used. Novices who come to the platform install the software, stare blankly at the screen, click things, and give up and move on to a more intuitive product. It would be impossible to measure how many adoptions they have lost because of that initial Now What? moment, but it’s significant I promise you.

On a related note, employment opportunities for Drupal experts is on the rise. People who have worked their way through the WTF to where they can be productive with the platform are in demand. I can now navigate and decode the documentation (I think some of the writers of the documentation are so steeped in the Drupal Way that they don’t even realize they are writing in code), and that puts me in good position to find work. When the out-of-box experience is improved (a major thrust of Drupal 7), my “expert” status will be less lucrative.

Speaking of the Drupal Way: At the risk of being overly general, these guys are more sensitive than even Mac people when it comes to hearing criticism about their platform. Also, there were easily more Macs in evidence than Windows laptops. Perhaps that is because we are on Apple’s home turf here, but I think that Mac, with its handy Unix underpinnings, is finding a sweet spot in the Web design world, with cachet among the designers as well as unix (the os of the Web) for the übergeeks. (The only apple I brought to the convention, I ate. I have Ol’ Pokey charging up, however, to see if it’s game for one last field trip before its ten-year-old video system gives up entirely.)

Back to the keynote: Mr. Buytaert, while talking about the future of Drupal, mentioned that as they got bigger, there would be people for whom using Drupal would be a day job! They wouldn’t be using it just for the love of it, they would think of it as just another tool to get their job done. Mr. Buytaert, welcome to 2008. Those people are now your market, if you want to meet your stated goals for growth.

One thing I’ll say for the guy, he really seems driven by the simple desire to make Drupal the best. He’s probably wealthy now, but commercial success just doesn’t seem to be what motivates him. He wants to make his baby better and better and world domination is simply a way to measure how well he’s doing. It’s refreshing to hear from someone like that.

As for the security sessions, I think this best sums it up (this link was given in one of the seminars):

A note of explanation for the less-geeky (which you can skip): When a programmer is careless, people can put a string in any field on a site and cause database commands to be executed. In the comic, the name “Robert’); DROP TABLE Students;–” will cause the database the table named ‘Students’, obliterating their records. The ‘); tells the database that the command to add the name is finished, then the rest of the text is treated as a new command. Aren’t you glad you asked?

I also learned just what a risk it is to link to an image the way I just did. The owner of that site can now attack my blog. Ah, the irony.

I did learn some useful stuff in the seminars, and just in time, too. I’m really glad I went.

She thought it would be great if her computer didn’t crash so often.

Wow! Hold the phone, there, Sparky! Not Crashing? That’s some out-of-the-box thinking right there! At least, it’s innovative thinking for Microsoft, apparently.

I suppose if it takes some French chick to point that out for them, well, I’m glad she took the time. My copy of Windows 7 arrived two days ago and is now installed on my Mac. Hasn’t crashed once in the half-hour I’ve run it.

Granted there are many plants that are much better candidates for creating biofuel than corn, the main crop used now, and even corn production could be made more efficient and less destructive to the soil. Still, perhaps it’s time to step back and look at the actual problem we are trying to solve. A better solution just might present itself.

What we are trying to do is make solar energy portable. Plants do that using photosynthesis — they put some carbon dioxide and some water next to each other and wait for a photon to whack the system just right, and out comes an energetic molecule, and some nice free oxygen to boot. It’s a pretty slick system. What we are doing now is using plants as solar collectors. We set them out in the sun, give them access to (lots of) water and carbon dioxide, and later we chop them down and collect the energy. Of course, the form of the energy isn’t quite right (sugars aren’t good fuel), so we have to process the result, using up some of the energy we collected.

The goal, then, is to turn sunshine into gasoline, alcohol, or some other handy hydrocarbon.

Flash back to when you were in grade school science class, watching a movie about how plants work. We zoom down into the animated land beneath the surface of the leaf where the magic is happening. A little wizard is hard at work, gathering the ingredients, then… at the critical moment he gawps at the camera, eyes round, and pulls a screen in front of his workbench. “We don’t know what happens back there,” the narrator says in his happy-narrator voice, “but what comes out is…” (I don’t remember exactly what comes out. ATP? You can look it up.)

Bumblebees. Photosynthesis. Great mysteries when we were kids, but not anymore. (Did no one mention to you that bumblebees can fly now? They have tiny horizontal tornadoes raging just above their wings. Sometimes the explanation is even cooler than the mystery.) Anyway, photosynthesis. Somehow, films made before DNA had been discovered still have us convinced that some things are unknown. I’m no photosyntholigist, but I only have to glance at wikipedia to know that the process is pretty well-understood today.

So I ask you: Do we really need the plant? We know how that stuff works, and we can reproduce it. Can we not create a solid-state device that captures solar energy and puts out an energetic molecule – the exact molecule we want as an end product? We could use such a device to create fuels with absolutely no impurities (no sulfur, for instance), and no net carbon footprint. The system does not have to be very efficient to easily outdistance existing plant-based methods, and it would use land that has much less value in terms of ongoing human prosperity. Farms could go back to growing food.

Picture a gas station on the highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Behind it there is an array of dark panes stretched over the desert floor. From the array a pipe leads to a holding tank which holds the highest-quality gasoline money can buy. And the cost to the dealer is fixed – he just has to pay to maintain the system.

There would be environmental impact, of course. Vast tracts of desert would be shaded, and somewhat cooler as a result of energy being removed from the system. Although our machine would use a lot less water than a living plant, (or perhaps another source of hydrogen?), there would still be some demand. Overall, though, I think environmentalists would see it as a lesser evil.

I’ve been kicking this idea around for years, now, but apparently I haven’t ever written about it here. The plan is filed under get-poor-quick, but man, if anybody got something like this working, they could become some kind of ridiculously wealthy. As well they should.

Let’s start with the good. Since the dawn of time Apple mice have had only one button. It’s a religious thing with the boys in Cupertino, I guess; even while their operating system supports (and even embraces) functionality that requires right-clicking and scroll-wheeling, the mouse has remained mired in one-button land. The Magic mouse technically keeps the one-button faith, while providing support for a huge range of input. There’s one button, but where your finger pushes the button can change the action. The entire top surface of the mouse is a trackpad. You can configure the mouse to have as many virtual buttons as you want.

There’s no scroll wheel, but if you slide your finger down the surface of the mouse it acts like one. Slide your finger side to side, and you’re scrolling horizontally. I really like that feature, but it took some getting used to.

With a little extra software, things get even better. You see, the mouse can track all five of your fingers at once, and can respond to a huge variety of gestures. Pinch to zoom in. Reverse the gesture to zoom out. Twist with three fingers to rotate something. It’s all configurable and it’s sweet.

The only problem with this hot little number: It’s wireless. I don’t need wireless; in fact, the vast majority of people who use computers don’t need wireless. It’s a convenience for those who use a mouse with their laptops, but I’ve always been just fine plugging the mouse in (and in fact some people have had problems when their wireless mice have awakened their laptops and drained their batteries).

Yet somehow wireless is better (rhymes with ‘power windows on cars’). The Magic Mouse just seems “magicer” when it doesn’t need a wire to talk to the computer. There is no doubt that the marketplace has decided “wireless is better” and Apple (and the rest of the mouse-producing industry) is not going to fight that.

So what’s my beef with wireless? Simple. It’s the batteries. Batteries cost money, and using this mouse produces a steady stream of toxic waste. If the purchase cost of a battery included the cost of disposing of the hazardous chemicals inside it, maybe people wouldn’t be so fast to use battery-powered devices where wired power is available. How many AA batteries go into landfills each year, creating a toxic mess someone will have to clean up someday, because people buy battery-powered devices that don’t need to be? Let’s reserve the battery power for things that need to be battery-powered.

I know that technically people aren’t supposed to throw away batteries anymore, but people still do. The chemicals in batteries are just as harmful in the soil as plutonium for the same amount of energy (he says with no backing evidence), but people treat them with cavalier indifference. And sure, rechargeable batteries reduce the rate that toxic waste is created, but they don’t eliminate it. Rechargeables will be my compromise so I can continue to use my wonderful mouse with a cleaner conscience. Wired power has environmental consequences as well, but I’d be right stunned if they approached the harm that battery power causes.

So here I am, using the coolest damn mouse ever, happy with it, and feeling slightly guilty. My old Logitech USB mouse is right here, with lots of buttons and a scrollwheel and whatnot, but it’s just not as good. It’s ok to pollute if you feel guilty about it, right?

I don’t mind writing software; I’m pretty good at it and I can make pretty decent money doing it. I would much rather write code than dig ditches, for instance, and luckily for me the world has decided that making Web sites is worth more than roadside drainage. (Before you go and say, “that’s because it takes skill and training to make a Web site, but anyone could dig a ditch’, ask yourself – could you dig ditches for a living? If the economy were turned upside-down, that ditch-digger living in his nice house would say, ‘anyone can make a living sitting on their ass in front of a computer, but I dig ditches. I’m glad things are the way they are, is all I’m saying.)

My current job sends me dangerously into territory I don’t much like, however, and that’s the area known as Information Technology. It’s not really a good name for the job, which is about setting up computers and keeping them running. It’s less about making things and more about making things work.

Last night, for instance, I moved the Web product I’m working on to a different server and it didn’t work. Naturally I assumed the problem was in my code (it had worked on that server in the past), so it was several hours later that I discovered that for reasons I still don’t know, the server failed when it tried to compress very large messages. Just *poof* no response beyond the number 500 (something went wrong). To make things more fun the server was specifically set up to not write out a lot of error messages to its log. I turned off the compression feature (with a hammer) and things worked again. Five hours or so spent to add seven characters to a PHP file, to make things work the same way they already did on other servers. Welcome to the world of IT.

I think the original intention of the phrase information technology referred to the the information that would be stored, manipulated, and distributed by machines. What the I really stands for is the vast store of arcane crap you have to know to do that job well. What line of the php.ini file to modify if you want zlib output buffering and utf-8 character encoding. How to set up all the computers in an office to use a local domain name server first. That’s the information in IT.

The worst thing about having an IT job is this, however: When you’re doing a good job, no one notices. When a company is running smoothly, that’s a sign that the IT department can be downsized. There are no problems! What are those guys doing all day? Having things not happen as part of your job description makes for tricky times when you do your job well. Of course, when something does go wrong people know just where to find you.

So if you work in a company that has people on payroll working to keep your technology humming along, cut them a little slack. Someone’s got to do that stuff; be glad it’s not you. I do enough IT now to know that I’d rather let someone else have the pleasure.

I found myself facing (for the third time in three months) the need to install the latest Apache (and set up virtual hosts), PHP, Pear, MySQL server, PHP email addons, Propel, and on and on. For many of these items, the instructions for installations go something like:

1) Download the source code
2) Configure the build
3) Compile the application

And the instructions go on from there. For most of the above there are shortcuts, and probably-recent-enough versions of some things come built-in with the Mac OS, but when you install it yourself you can get everything where you want it and avoid conflicts. Still, this can be a long, tedious, pain in the butt to get going. And when you install something and it doesn’t play well with the others, finding that one line in the secret config file that’s causing the problem can be a real pain.

Enter MacPorts. MacPorts is a project that has developed a system that does all the steps of the installation for you, and puts everything in standard places so everything else installed with MacPorts can find it and talk to it. There’s still some configuration to do (tell PHP where the database server’s socket is, and set passwords for instance), but overall things are much simpler, and there are very good instructions out there for tweaking and troubleshooting MacPort installs. Since the person writing the instructions knows where all the files are in the standard install, instructions can be much more specific.

With MacPorts installing php 5.3.1 was a simple matter of typing “sudo port install php5″ and letting the MacPort system do the rest. Hooray! Setting up a server is suddenly much simpler.

As an aside, MySQL didn’t work when I used MacPorts to install it on a previous machine. Don’t know why. Ran the install, followed the instructions, nothing. After a few hours banging my head against it, I went and got the excellent binary installer. It worked without a hitch. This time around I didn’t bother with the MacPorts version at all.

Anyway, thanks to MacPorts, I was able to get a complete development system up with nary a hitch, in a fraction of the time. Knowing where all the config files were this time around helped as well. I found several useful links on the Web, particularly from HiveLogic and my new buddy Danilo Stern-Sapad who took a little grammar rant from me with grace.

On that note, I read the phrase “How to setup…” so many times in so many places it’s amazing I still have teeth.

Last night I realized I hadn’t installed GIMP on this computer yet. GIMP is an open-source graphics program that wishes it rivaled Photoshop but it doesn’t really. It’s free, however, and when you consider the incredible amount of work that went into it, you have to be impressed. I don’t do a whole lot with graphics, so GIMP is usually adequate for my needs.

I went to the Web site for GIMP there were a couple of options for installation, including MacPorts. Just type “sudo port install gimp” into the terminal and that’s that. Pretty sweet.

One thing about a program like GIMP: it’s really a collection of a bazillion smaller parts. Many of those parts require other bits to work. When you run a traditional installer, all the parts are already there and they’re already tied together in a neat bundle. MacPorts does things a little differently; each part knows what parts it depends on to work, so when you say “install gimp” it first looks at the parts gimp needs, then at the parts those parts depend on, and so forth. You get to watch (if you choose to pay attention) the parade of all the little pieces as they’re installed, each the product of an individual or small group of people who have allowed their work to be exploited for free.

For GIMP, the list of dependencies goes very deep. I watched as X11 was installed. X11 is already on my computer, but ok, this is MacPorts and they keep their own realm and that way they can update parts without worrying about how that will affect non-MacPort installations. It’s redundant, but that’s why God made big hard drives.

Then I saw Python 2.6 install. Later, Python 2.5 went by. One of the little pieces seems to depend on an earlier version of Python. This probably means the person in charge of that bit just hasn’t updated it recently. On the installation went. After a while the Gnu Compiler Collection came down the pipe. gcc is a collection of compilers for building programs, and I watched as gcc was built… using the gcc already installed on my machine. Hm. And what’s this? Fortran! Yep, somewhere in the great tree of dependencies (maybe ‘root system’ would be a better term), someone decided that a Fortran compiler was necessary to run GIMP.

Actually, that’s not quite fair; the piece that loaded the Fortran compiler might need it for other tasks not related to GIMP. Just because GIMP uses a library doesn’t mean that’s the only use for it. Still, I ended up with a lot of stuff I don’t need. It’s all invisible and I’d never know it was there if I hadn’t watched the install (which took hours), so it’s not a disaster or anything. And next time I need Fortran I’m ahead of the curve!

Time slipped past, the install continued. I went to bed. When I got up this morning to check if the build was finished, I discovered there had been an error. Yep, the MacPort version of gimp-app doesn’t currently compile on 64-bit operating systems. All that other stuff that was installed? Python 2.6 and Python 2.5, the Gnu Compiler Collection (including Fortran), libgnome and libbonoboui and tkl and tk and gd2 and dozens of other things I don’t know what are, they’re still there, waiting to be useful in some way.

Second, running multiple products from Adobe, along with their infamous memory leaks, means that my little Mac Mini is severely challenged. Adobe makes big products, and seems much more worried about features than performance. I have an income (made in part from using Adobe products), and can justify upgrading hardware at some point, but then what happens to the old machine? There’s still plenty of computing left in the little guy. It’s actually pretty fast.

Then it occurred to me that the perfect answer would be a second mini just like the first, that I could connect in such a way that they could share the workload. Suddenly my upgrade gets a lot cheaper and I’m not getting rid of a perfectly good computer.

I know that there is a supercomputer built from a bazillion macs all hooked together and sharing the load, so why can’t I get some of that action? What would it take to get two macs hooked together to become a single computer? It seems just too damn obviously a good thing to not exist.

I’m filing this under Get-Poor-Quick Schemes, since it’s probably one of those ideas that looks good on paper but is in fact a major PITA. Still, what a great OS feature that would be.

After perhaps a second of reflection she said, “How about, ‘We get the job done but there might be a lot of explosions first.’”

I laughed, thought for a few seconds, and ventured, ‘There will be a lot of shooting, but no one will be hit.’

Obviously my sweetie is funnier than I am.

It seems nice on the surface and I’m happy that someone would go and fix Internet Explorer despite Microsoft, but I have to wonder how many people will actually install the plugin. The people who are using IE now are ones who either like IE as it is or who must use IE because their IT department says so. Will the first group see value in adding a plugin to make their browser work like another browser (which they just as easily could be using already), or will IT departments allow their ‘clients’ to install such a large unknown quantity on their machines?

The thing is designed so that the WebKit code (what Chrome is based on) will only be invoked on Web pages that specifically enable it. (This might help the IT guys relax a bit.) I will enable it for this site, although the differences Chrome Frame users will see are only cosmetic. It costs me nothing. Somewhere the Google minions will make note of my Chrome enabilization and use that as part of a marketing pitch.

My hope for the plugin is not that it converts a lot of Internet Explorer users, but that it spurs Microsoft to accelerate their own adoption of the next wave of standards. That would be the biggest win from where I’m sitting. It doesn’t seem likely, though, until HTML 5 becomes a valuable tool for its business customers.

Whether it’s Bing making Google Search better or Chrome making Internet Explorer better, in the end I’m glad these two companies don’t get along.