> I thought that 'EasyScripts' (or, even, 'EZScripts') had most people's
> approval. I thought it ws alright - well, taking the target audience
> into account :)

...which is the *only* important factor in this equation.

I'm still enough of a newbie (those on IRC will have just experienced my joy
at using an effective 'map' statement for the first time) that I can
remember being tasked with building a site from scratch, and knowing no perl
at all.

I was ambitious enough to learn from scratch, but the 'free' scripts out
there were tempting. I knew nothing but a few lines of any language at the
time, and I almost grabbed the first thing I could make work, and shoved it
up on the server.

In the end, I had more curiosity and conscience than that, and I went
through "Learning Perl" and a database-driven site tutorial, and wrote a
system from scratch. However, from those people I've seen on communities
like monkeyjunkies and evolt, as well as IRL, most people in the market for
'free scripts' aren't like that.

They don't care if it's in perl or in swahili (or, more importantly, in
PHP), if they can make it work without a headache. And at the moment, there
are more free PHP scripts out there that work than there are perl ones.

Generally, they hve generic product names, occasionally with a nod towards
the language (phorum, for example), but really quite generic.

We need the name of this archive to be similarly generic. The fact the
scripts are in perl only matters to the target users 6 months to a year
after they install them, when they want to tweak them, or finally get
curious about how their site actually works.

I'm a big fan of "EasyScripts" as a name. It may be cheesy, but I'm guessing
the majority of the target audience will lap it up. And it's available (or
was) as a domain. It's simple to remember, and simple to type, meaning it
will get spread by word of mouth.

And while I'm semi-ranting, there is *no* argument to be had on the .zip vs
.tar.gz files front. Anyone who knows any Linux at all will be able to unzip
.zips on a linux box, or unzip them in windows and upload the contents
afterwards. OTOH, there are plenty of newbies who will be scared shitless by
the sight of a .tar.gz, and be even more disconcerted by Winzip's frankly
confusing method of opening them. Ergo, the scripts should be distributed as
.zips (and no, a choice between 2 formats is not acceptable - people will
get confused).

<point type="beaten to death">
*Lowest* *Common* *Denominator*

On a separate, but important note, I know a fair few people at evolt, so I
will submit an article on the archive as soon as it's in a publically
presentable state, explaining what's wrong with Matt, even from the
"but-I-don't-care" user's point of view, and why these scripts are a few
million times better.

There are a *lot* of newbies over there, and it should give us a reasonable
kick in terms of publicity.

And (bear with me - I'm in a stream of consciousness now) has anyone given
any thought to "powered-by" icons? Should the scripts incorporate them into
their output (a bit intrusive for my tastes), or should we just make them
optional? What does Matt do on this front? Who is a G1MP Ma573r?

that is all.

Simon Batistoni       userfrenzy
+44 7209 4117

Reply via email to