The future of SMF
Hey all,
There are questions in the boards and everywhere about the future of SMF after the long-awaited 2.0 milestone. Some of you remember or have an idea about how long it took from start to finish, and the difficulties we had along the way. Enough of that, though, we have moved forward and we have taken the road towards a true Open Source project, as many have been waiting for. Lets take a look at the present and future.
The community, for years, has been asking about SMF having more features - those of a blog, a gallery, a CMS, and a dozen other things that don't quite fit with all forums. It's been the position of the SMF project that SMF is a forum first and foremost, and that it has to remain simple, with little to no bloat. Are these two desires polar opposites, or is there a solution to bring the two views in accord?
There is a solution. A simple one, and it's time to let you know where we're going.
Long-Term Goals
Last year, I presented the roadmap for future development (post-2.0) to the SMF project team. While the short-term goal was obviously to release 2.0 Gold, the medium- and long-term goals were also discussed. To enumerate a few of the essential goals:
How will we go about accomplishing these goals?
The best way to go, for extensibility and reliability, as well as a years-old wish of the SMF project, is to design SMF in two parts: a core platform, and a forum module plugged into it.
The first part is what we have for a while called "smCore". smCore is designed as a core framework with essential components to serve a wider range of web applications, not only a forum. It comprises functions like user authentication, logging, administration, and a few others - provided in a simple interface for the forum to use (replacing SMF's own generic components with the centralized version). SMF 3.0 is intended as the first module for this core, using its functions. Over time, there may be others - a blog, a CMS, a wiki, a gallery, and so on. The work we do on smCore will benefit each of these things, as well as any top-level modules the community wants to make as well.
What does this all mean?
Simply, this means that SMF will have its inner workings completely rewritten. It doesn't mean there will be two packages for installation, the installer can be smart enough to download the module(s) of your choice to your server. To most users, it simply means that the code and the architecture are different under the hood, and nothing more. SMF itself definitely needs a rewrite of its codebase, to be more in line with PHP's best practices and programming patterns. The "core" part is designed to be extensible from the start, so you can easily add to it with modules and plugins in place of direct code modification.
What does this mean for the next versions of SMF?
Accomplishing these goals means a rebuild of the current codebase, to become the platform we've always wanted.
smCore Project History and Inheritance
The name "smCore" has been tossed around as far back as last year's SMF development roadmaps, but it's really nothing new. It embodies a years-old desire of SMF developers, from 2005 and earlier, to create a product which is a true platform for development of SMF and first-level modules such as a blog, CMS, gallery, and other things which must currently must be hacked onto the forum and live as second-class citizens on your website. Moreover (development-wise) the initiative of a number of SMF friends, former SMF developers and interested contributors alike, from [Unknown] to a number of developers on other open source applications, to start a "core" project last year, went in a similar direction (though not identical) with what we're talking about here. Some of you may remember the unbelievable spark of ideas and brainstorming that went into envisioning a usable and reusable core for multiple web applications - including a forum - that those taking part aimed to create. Their initiative happened along with, and was perhaps in a was fed by, the same issues in the project that led to the restructure of Simple Machines throughout the last year. Purely from a development point of view, the immense brainstorming that happened there has been, IMHO, a wonderful experience and valuable source of ideas and analysis, choices and trade-offs, that smCore and SMF 3.0 will benefit from.
To put it simply, for SMF itself, we know that the way to go in the future is definitely along the lines of rewriting SMF on top of an easily extensible core platform. Other modules will be built on top of this core, not on top of the forum as they would currently be.
Where we are today
From my perspective, it's time to start bringing these plans to fruition. Some of the prerequisite steps have been completed, from the long-awaited Open Source release of SMF 2.0 and the finalization of the umbrella organization, to a number of other steps aiming to truly open this project to its community.
The smCore project will be developed separately from SMF itself, as a sibling project under the Simple Machines organization umbrella. It already has a team of initial Developers (Norv, Fustrate, and Joshua Dickerson) and Core Contributors (AngelinaBelle and Joey Smith), and the project has already joined Simple Machines.
smCore will have open development, comprised of the following:
On another note, with the changes to a non-profit umbrella organization, Simple Machines' goal is to host multiple projects and make them available to the community. In time, we aim to develop, under this umbrella organization, a "family" of projects such as smCore, SMF, a help desk system, and many more.
Where we are today, development-wise
For SMF 2.1, we have added enhancements and made fixes to the 2.0 codebase, such as:
Work on SMF 3.0 is basically starting when smCore is ready to accept modules, and then, it is being written as a module for smCore. It will be mostly rewritten and partly ported from SMF 2.1 code on a case by case basis, and only in very carefully chosen situations. Porting code is not the same as directly reusing - there is little possible reuse, because of the difference in programming paradigms and design principles between SMF as we know it (and which will remain procedural in 2.1) and SMF of the future.
In the upcoming few weeks, we will have more news about the changes we're making to bring development closer to the community, ease contributions in various areas, enhance official tools and mods and themes areas, ease availability of highly requested tools, and many others. SMF needs you - all of you - whether to give us your proposals, your feedback, your needs, your help, your disagreement - because at the end of the day, we're not building SMF just for us, but for you.
Finally, there's smCore. We have started the project, done a lot of brainstorming, and laid out a roadmap for what we want to achieve. Some code has been written, rewritten, and written yet again, as we figure out which paths we want to take. We've opted to go with a light MVCS (Model/View/Controller/Storage) pattern rather than a strict and heavy traditional MVC pattern (such as the one Zend Framework uses) so that modules are easy to get up and running with minimal setup and code required. Our main focus with smCore is to have a platform that helps module developers create powerful modules quickly. It's an ambitious project, designed from the ground up to be the best and most simple development platform available. We like the direction we're moving in, and we know you will too.
You should look forward to more frequent updates, by the way. This board has gone unnoticed for far too long!
There are questions in the boards and everywhere about the future of SMF after the long-awaited 2.0 milestone. Some of you remember or have an idea about how long it took from start to finish, and the difficulties we had along the way. Enough of that, though, we have moved forward and we have taken the road towards a true Open Source project, as many have been waiting for. Lets take a look at the present and future.
The community, for years, has been asking about SMF having more features - those of a blog, a gallery, a CMS, and a dozen other things that don't quite fit with all forums. It's been the position of the SMF project that SMF is a forum first and foremost, and that it has to remain simple, with little to no bloat. Are these two desires polar opposites, or is there a solution to bring the two views in accord?
There is a solution. A simple one, and it's time to let you know where we're going.
Long-Term Goals
Last year, I presented the roadmap for future development (post-2.0) to the SMF project team. While the short-term goal was obviously to release 2.0 Gold, the medium- and long-term goals were also discussed. To enumerate a few of the essential goals:
- Built-in extensibility and plugin system. We all know there are pitfalls in using direct code modifications to change the behavior of SMF, especially on templates. We have already taken steps to diminish direct code modifications from 2.0 RC4 onwards, with hooks and a little API, but that was just a step in the greater plan.
- Better theming system. We want themes to be very simple to tweak and customize, nice and understandable. Tweaking SMF themes is not difficult, but making truly great themes is neither easy nor maintainable. It should be.
- Ability to integrate with a blog, CMS, gallery, etc. without having to write or use an external integration. While we're not going to package these things with all forums, they should be simple to install and integrate with if the need arises. You should have the ability to check a box during installation and have the installer download and install whatever you need for you. The community has asked for this for a long time, and we want to make it a reality.
- And much more, but more on those at a later date.
How will we go about accomplishing these goals?
The best way to go, for extensibility and reliability, as well as a years-old wish of the SMF project, is to design SMF in two parts: a core platform, and a forum module plugged into it.
The first part is what we have for a while called "smCore". smCore is designed as a core framework with essential components to serve a wider range of web applications, not only a forum. It comprises functions like user authentication, logging, administration, and a few others - provided in a simple interface for the forum to use (replacing SMF's own generic components with the centralized version). SMF 3.0 is intended as the first module for this core, using its functions. Over time, there may be others - a blog, a CMS, a wiki, a gallery, and so on. The work we do on smCore will benefit each of these things, as well as any top-level modules the community wants to make as well.
What does this all mean?
Simply, this means that SMF will have its inner workings completely rewritten. It doesn't mean there will be two packages for installation, the installer can be smart enough to download the module(s) of your choice to your server. To most users, it simply means that the code and the architecture are different under the hood, and nothing more. SMF itself definitely needs a rewrite of its codebase, to be more in line with PHP's best practices and programming patterns. The "core" part is designed to be extensible from the start, so you can easily add to it with modules and plugins in place of direct code modification.
What does this mean for the next versions of SMF?
Accomplishing these goals means a rebuild of the current codebase, to become the platform we've always wanted.
- The immediate next version of SMF, however, is entirely based on 2.0 and will be called SMF 2.1. It aims to bring some absolutely necessary enhancements to forums on 2.0, such as the introduction of even more hooks for modification authors to take advantage of, lots of bug fixes (of course!), a few enhancements that are useful for forums.
We are working on 2.1, with a few of us focusing on it, and will post more about its status in the coming days. - Additionally, we have been working to make a more few steps along the way to SMF 3.0; SMF has been seeing a refactoring of its codebase, with the main purposes of implementing SMF action handling according to the MVC pattern, and a number of code improvements and reworkings. While this work is still on the current codebase, it has aimed to prepare in a measure the SMF codebase for the move to SMF 3.0.
- The next step is moving to a module-based system. SMF 3.0 will be a forum module based on smCore, and will take advantage of everything we know and learn from the development, along with even more ambitious plans. The rough outline of our plan is as follows:
SMF 3.0, using smCore, will be a "smart installer", but for practical purposes it will seem like just another installer. smCore's inner workings, however, will allow you to install multiple modules at any time, directly into the core instead of trying to, for example, add a blog onto a forum. This will be fully object oriented, align with modern design patterns and best practices, and allow extensibility right from the start. There will be a real plugin system for SMF and other modules, so that the need for direct code modifications will be greatly reduced (though we'll probably still provide a mechanism to do so, for when it's absolutely necessary).
smCore Project History and Inheritance
The name "smCore" has been tossed around as far back as last year's SMF development roadmaps, but it's really nothing new. It embodies a years-old desire of SMF developers, from 2005 and earlier, to create a product which is a true platform for development of SMF and first-level modules such as a blog, CMS, gallery, and other things which must currently must be hacked onto the forum and live as second-class citizens on your website. Moreover (development-wise) the initiative of a number of SMF friends, former SMF developers and interested contributors alike, from [Unknown] to a number of developers on other open source applications, to start a "core" project last year, went in a similar direction (though not identical) with what we're talking about here. Some of you may remember the unbelievable spark of ideas and brainstorming that went into envisioning a usable and reusable core for multiple web applications - including a forum - that those taking part aimed to create. Their initiative happened along with, and was perhaps in a was fed by, the same issues in the project that led to the restructure of Simple Machines throughout the last year. Purely from a development point of view, the immense brainstorming that happened there has been, IMHO, a wonderful experience and valuable source of ideas and analysis, choices and trade-offs, that smCore and SMF 3.0 will benefit from.
To put it simply, for SMF itself, we know that the way to go in the future is definitely along the lines of rewriting SMF on top of an easily extensible core platform. Other modules will be built on top of this core, not on top of the forum as they would currently be.
Where we are today
From my perspective, it's time to start bringing these plans to fruition. Some of the prerequisite steps have been completed, from the long-awaited Open Source release of SMF 2.0 and the finalization of the umbrella organization, to a number of other steps aiming to truly open this project to its community.
The smCore project will be developed separately from SMF itself, as a sibling project under the Simple Machines organization umbrella. It already has a team of initial Developers (Norv, Fustrate, and Joshua Dickerson) and Core Contributors (AngelinaBelle and Joey Smith), and the project has already joined Simple Machines.
smCore will have open development, comprised of the following:
- Public read access to the Git repository
- An open issues tracker
- Public feedback and development discussions
- An environment of encouraging and accepting contributions regardless of "official position"
On another note, with the changes to a non-profit umbrella organization, Simple Machines' goal is to host multiple projects and make them available to the community. In time, we aim to develop, under this umbrella organization, a "family" of projects such as smCore, SMF, a help desk system, and many more.
Where we are today, development-wise
For SMF 2.1, we have added enhancements and made fixes to the 2.0 codebase, such as:
- IPv6 Support - Specifically in posts, ip tracking and ban management.
- Mod/admin sessions.
- Jquery library support
- Improved code documentation,
- Security tokens,
- A level of code cleaning.
Work on SMF 3.0 is basically starting when smCore is ready to accept modules, and then, it is being written as a module for smCore. It will be mostly rewritten and partly ported from SMF 2.1 code on a case by case basis, and only in very carefully chosen situations. Porting code is not the same as directly reusing - there is little possible reuse, because of the difference in programming paradigms and design principles between SMF as we know it (and which will remain procedural in 2.1) and SMF of the future.
In the upcoming few weeks, we will have more news about the changes we're making to bring development closer to the community, ease contributions in various areas, enhance official tools and mods and themes areas, ease availability of highly requested tools, and many others. SMF needs you - all of you - whether to give us your proposals, your feedback, your needs, your help, your disagreement - because at the end of the day, we're not building SMF just for us, but for you.
Finally, there's smCore. We have started the project, done a lot of brainstorming, and laid out a roadmap for what we want to achieve. Some code has been written, rewritten, and written yet again, as we figure out which paths we want to take. We've opted to go with a light MVCS (Model/View/Controller/Storage) pattern rather than a strict and heavy traditional MVC pattern (such as the one Zend Framework uses) so that modules are easy to get up and running with minimal setup and code required. Our main focus with smCore is to have a platform that helps module developers create powerful modules quickly. It's an ambitious project, designed from the ground up to be the best and most simple development platform available. We like the direction we're moving in, and we know you will too.
You should look forward to more frequent updates, by the way. This board has gone unnoticed for far too long!
*Starts the time-machine*
Is it like HMVC or MVP at all?
Pseudo-code:
$storage = $this->getStorage('posts');
// Naughty me, hard-coding my ID :P
$postsByMe = $storage->getByUser(108127);
Maybe there's already a term for it, I'm not big into formality like that. Blame MVCS on Norv
All the best team.
When would you release SMF 2.1?.
It would be great to support IPv6 natively (without any mod) for post tracking and ban before the "World IPv6 Launch" on June 6th, 2012.
That will get SMF 2.0.x to recognise IPv6
I know that mod... that's why I asked about "to support IPv6 natively (without any mod)".
I'll be keep an eye on this.
Early beta still means that you don't run it on a live site unless you know what you're doing. Getting a stable release wont happen in a month. No, you can't expect an exact date at this stage. That's just not realistic. Sorry.
That means Ant's analysis is a good approximation of reality.
OMG, but June is this month? I though it was the next one!
Don't say that. You'll ruin my reputation.
hope to see it soon
https://github.com/SimpleMachines/SMF2.1
And yes, Arantor... but, on the other hand, it certainly beats us having to listen to "any news, any news, any news..." (ad inifinitum) from the moaners out there.
If you don't know what you're doing, then wait for the release... if you want to know when the release will be ready, I point you to every single answer given previously - "It will be ready when it's ready"
I'm not convinced. What I think will happen is that those who would moan about no news would moan it isn't ready, same reason why I won't give out the Wedge repo details - those who moan will find something to moan about, it'll just be moaning about something different, and personally I'd rather people moan about a delay rather than poor quality/rushed delivery.
I've earned the right
I got nothing. This seems a bit bizarre.
Maybe one of the developers is being paid by a spectacles manufacturer to screw everyone's eyesight?
Aaaaaah!!!
I figure anyone who can figure out how to make a copy of 2.1 or SMCore work is smart enough to understand why it isn't ready. Github isn't exactly a one-click installer.
Thats one downside of open source, we can't really hide an open source project.
Moaners will always moan no matter what, the really cool think about been an open source is that any feature request can be answered with a "commit or STFO"
SMF did for years
The problem with that approach is that you can't add in every commit, even if it follows all the coding standards because not all commits will suit the goals of the project as a whole.
True, but then again SMF wasn't truly an open source project, we pretty much controlled the distribution, something that just don't get along with any open source license.
Absolutely true, you can't just let anybody enter to your house
That is why it is vital to keep a team, many people say that after the license change, there is no need to keep a SMF team, well, this is one of the reasons why it should be a team, kinda like a "quality control" team.
Sure, a lot of people will get upset about their commits not been included, that is just a thing we will have to deal just like we had to deal with moaners all those years
2.0 is under a truly open source licence, and the 2.0 security releases were carried out under that restricted environment.
The licence does not affect the way in which the developers choose to develop the project, they are free to develop it entirely under wraps. I don't believe MyBB (LGPL) has their repo fully open to the world, for example.
Yup, and that's part of the problem with open development, it makes such things absolutely transparent and if you're not interested in taking on external development much, or have a high standard, you might as well keep the repo private.
Except that you get that in addition to the 'I downloaded it but it isn't ready yet' moans. And that still doesn't detract from the 'why isn't it ready yet' moan. To me, it makes more work, not less.
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV so don't quote me on this but as far as I understand only 2.0 and forward are under an open source license, that is, any RC and 1.0 and 1.1 releases are still under the SMF license.
As for the development process, yes, the license doesn't force you to keep your environment open but, it is better to keep the "official" environment open than to let somebody else to upload the SMF code to bitbucket or whatever and to fool people to think that page is the official one.
We can't really stop people from doing that but at least we can be truly transparent about the "official" development and people can make their own conclusions on it.
Yes I agree, there always will be people complaining about this, this will not change, it happen in the past and happens now and will happen on the future.
This doesn't have to do much with what license or develop environment we chose but has to do with the whole free thing, being free means a lot of people, different kind of people has access to this software, this will inevitably will attract people with, lests say, not so much understanding about software and stuff
Correct.
If that were to happen you could quite happily take action in those cases. The protections in the licence basically amount to that if someone wants to do so, it's still copyrighted to SMF and that they need to change the name of it otherwise.
And that's my problem with it all: it means you get people seeing the code who shouldn't be let loose with it.
Of course, I was talking about the code and not so much a bout the trademark fulcrum and all that stuff, anyone can upload a 2.0 version on any site and do with that what ever they want, people aren't smart enough to properly understand the concept of fork so we will end up taking the blame anyways, that is why I think it will be better to just be truly open about this, if people are dumb, well, that is their problem, we are doing all we can, the rest is up to them
Yes, it is inevitable, we pretty much need to learn to live with it, there is no choice, hiding the development process will do more harm than good (specially because of our history), we have been persecuted for that for years
I think the benefits of being open overpass the downsides of it, if people moan we can always write something on the wiki and just put a link to that whenever there is a moaner.
I was talking about the code too. BSD is not a free pass, it still requires adhering to copyright law and passing-off laws.
Hmm. Time will tell.
Personally I prefer to solve the problem rather than documenting a workaround
Thing is, being open or closed both has its ups and downs, open is the path SMF has decided and we must face any downside this path may have.
Yea, ego is the the reason for the demise of "main_block". That should be fixed till the end of SMF 2.0! Multiple versions or forks alone will fail. Divided we will fail. United we will survive!
Actually it isn't, but you just keep going, since you seem to be on a roll.
ETA: To address the other points..........
1/ Because the image no longer has any point in its 2.0 form. The structure of the theme has been simplified by removing all of the spans that took up a large part of the old main_block image. The header and footer of the theme no longer need the massive chunks of graphics that made up more large parts of the old image. The rounded corners are all done with CSS3 now. Etc.
Bascially, there is no point in having the old image any more. Since a lot of people apparently found the old image confusing, both in terms of css and in terms of editing the actual image, getting rid of it is perhaps not a total disaster. Getting rid of it will also slightly reduce bandwidth usage, since the new images are a lot lighter. The number of http requests for images is not increased over 2.0, so cache times should still be good.
IF you are concerned about the actual name of the image being changed, I cannot really see why this would be problematic. However, if enough people think it is problematic then the image can be called anything at all.
2/ It's a leftover from 2.0.x. I assume you think it is equally disastrous in 2.0.x. You may be pleased to know that, since this is an alpha build, things are likely to be cleaned up a bit before the final build.
3/ It's alpha, and it still contains unnecessary leftovers from 2.0.x so yes, there is bound to be more. I already have a personal hit list of "more".
And although I'd have to check all the old topics, IIRC the PSD for Curve was made public with RC2. It was certainly public long before the release of 2.0 Final.
You replied to that topic right here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=347195.msg2352841#msg2352841
Now, you were saying?
The default theme psd was NOT released when gold was released and many had to go fish with the new psd file. The dimensions were incorrect in your initial release and it did not work. An actual release of the default theme PSD was really never made. Therefore, I was forced to make my own... Now I am pulling an "Arantor" because I remember the agony I went through... Next, I will get a robot cat icon!
Then you will will listen...
I do not understand why no one could release the default theme psd when gold was released? Instead it was a bug fat go fish.
Now I am on a roll...
I expect better this time around.
That was below the belt
...when we get a time machine.
I trust that Ant will follow through with a PSD for 2.1. Complaining about the past does nothing at this point
I did not know robots wore belts.
That was well before the final release
I cordially suggest that perhaps your recollection of events is incomplete. I made a main_block PSD for the initial RC2 release of the Curve theme. It was released at the same time as RC2. Due to changes during development, the PSD (and the png made from it) required updating for later release candidates. This was done as required. Some updates were done by me, and some were done by other people, but they were all done.
2.0 Final was released on June 12, 2011. There were no changes to the main_block between RC4 and Final, so the existing RC4 image (which was already publicly available) should have been fine for 2.0 Final. If you were still attempting to use the initial RC2 main_block PSD then sure, it wouldn't be correct for 2.0 Final.
I zipped everything that was available in the way of PSD's for 2.0 Final and posted them here exactly one week after the official release of 2.0 Final. Not weeks, plural, and certainly not months. Note that this was just a compilation zip for convenience, and only contained images that had already been made available anyway.
These were the official images, and are exactly the same images that the actual default theme was made from. If you had asked me, in the topic you had already been involved in, where the images were, I would have told you.
If you chose to ignore eveything that had been made available, nobody else is responsible for your decision. If you wish to continue your roll, from now on you will have to do so without my participation.
I can only say that the new image is wonderful (from my poor theme-oriented mind) and I was able to change the main color of the new theme in less that half an hour (compared to the the fact that I've never been able to do it for 2.0...
Heres a thought for 2.1 add them to the download section under tools.
Would you really need a psd for these files? (see the attachments)
Would you really need a psd for these files? (see the attachments)
It's like the last fight between me and Ant on what is the best way to handle the needs of translation of complex strings and themes: I know the needs of translators (well, more or less), but I don't know what a themer (really) wants to be able to do, so I need to understand. And to understand I need to ask questions. If the questions are obvious...well, give me an obvious answer and I'm happy (even better if you can give me a workable alternative).
I dunno. Your pictures do not look as bad as what imagined it was... Looks like my original theme before the main block stressed me... We will see when I get into the css. I am sure I am in for a big css plunge when I start updating boardhover.
Do like the idea of the curves in css, when I saw the main block I was wondering why they did not do it in css. I assumed it was due to time...
They'll get PSD's anyway. Easy enough, so might as well.
love to know if work has started on it or not but i guess that you will only start work after 2.1 is out ?
I'm not a coder so I can't really speak for any of you , about how much time and effort must go in to the work here and there!
I know that some of you are working on your own stuff and allot it looks very nice and promising.
I have mentioned here as well as everywhere I go that I have tested many forums Commercial and Open source, complete CMS systems , Blogs and portals, and I have supported some, But for me there is nothing that comes close to the possibilities from a tester / User's view on what can be done with SMF and it's Variables ... I will not mention names , but there are many great codes visiting here and the other sites I go to and some were pioneers of this SMF system.
To make it short it would be nice after everyone takes a break from this project, that they'd all or some may possible come back with a fresh out look and points of view... You Guys all put so much into this and it such a great system, I would hate to see it even be limited to something other than the possibility of it's future!
I know it's allot of code and more complicated than I can imagine, but It's working and still the best as far as I can tell!
And even though some may not appear to appreciate what you all have and are doing, there sure are allot using it, and this site is getting allot of hits!
But that's me and the way I feel!
i love the SMF, can't help it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>!
regards,
Maxx
Respectfully, I would disagree with you. It is not the incentive or drive on its own that has gone. It is all that goes with it.
There are other places where the people who know and understand what is going on have made the real situation only too clear. Some of those people have been touted as being the only people who can fix this mess, though I'm not entirely sure that's true; there are others.
Keeping in mind as always I love the SMF and the Ideas of some who have toyed and developed, various crossways in the road to how this system should be done, seems no one has lost interest. It just seems the project is getting real big and there may be many conflicting ideas on how it should be. And this type thing happens allot on the Big and The great and with people of the same rankings.
I know some have broken off and started on there on projects, and ideals, and I've seen some of them in action and the ones I've seen, all have very interesting functionality, as far as I can tell..
No I'm not gonna lose faith in the SMF...I would hate to see it go, Never found anything like it yet, and I'm experimenting as mention many times with many projects and CMS theme creations and seems none of them come close to SMF, with or with out getting way to complicated for the Normal User to operate without a webmaster or IT pro.
I love the ideas that Arantar / Nao and Bloc and some others I'm not familiar at all with, are going though, they are all thinking and debating on various topics, that seem to be way off course from each others thoughts...However to me they all seems so close. Like making the system user friendly, possibly lighter in weight. looks, less bloated and yet Up to the latest Browser engine friendliness. Not mention the Blog and social stuff.
I'm not gonna cut down anyone's ideas here because they are all good ones, just seems a shame that things have slowed down. It has come all this way !
I am certain there are many factors surrounding this like admin stuff and legal matters.
"In the living years"
regards,
Maxx
This is free software. If it actually becomes worth something, I am sure some big American corporate conglomerate will just take the code. Kinda like Apple did to shareware or Microsoft with up-start competitors. So enjoy what you have, while you still have it, play nice and stop the petty bickering!
This project has been unwell for years. I'm still not sure that it's in a good place.
Ironically one of the biggest stumbling blocks is who owns the code - specifically so that it is protected against being bought up the way you suggest.
I think it was the right decision because look at all we managed to do in 2.5 years without said interference... While the SMF dev team had to put up with so much crap.
And I'm not even blaming anyone for that... It's just a standard issue with 'design by committee'.
I think in the end, SMF will be better off once it gets rid of any semblance of democracy. Since it's unlikely to happen, I guess the only way for SMF to advance is to wait for a fork made under a 'dictatorship' policy, and reintegrate it fully into SMF -- me sees ElkArte as the very likely candidate for this, given that it's been advancing very quickly since it started (precisely because of the reduced team input), and it's committed to making SMF more modern. I'm even wondering if ElkArte isn't, by definition, destined to be SMF 3.0, and was never thought of as a proper fork... Rather, simply a better, safer, *simpler* environment for the 2011-2012 SMF dev team to work under.
Ah, sorry, I'm just typing my thoughts as they come up... I probably should shut up
So... Basically, I'm of the opinion that SMF will outlive most forum systems, it just isn't going to be very lively for the foreseeable future. And I guess it's okay. Plus, it gives Elk and Wedge a chance to steal some momentum from time to time...
I don't really care about that myself, though... It's simpler when there are only two 'registered' developers, I guess!
If I, personally, could get both Arantor and Nao ? back on the ol' team, it'd happen tomorrow.
Sadly, I think I have more chance of crapping on the moon.
In the last hour or so, I have been accused of what amounts to starting and spreading malicious rumours about SMF and lying about it in an attempt to promote another product. By a team member, no less.
So I'm going to say exactly what I have said to this person in private: tell me where I'm 'lying'. Tell me what it is I'm supposed to be lying about. Bring it out in to the public. Make your claim, let me defend myself and what I have to say - not that I'm going to have any trouble defending myself.
Maybe instead of this cloak and dagger crap, and walking around pretending nothing's wrong, the problems that are going on might actually get *fixed* instead of pretending everything's wonderful when anyone who spends a few minutes observing what has transpired will see it clearly isn't, given the complete change over of SMF team even since the RCs and the way the dev teams of successive generations have all gone elsewhere.
I remember how in 2010 when all this really blew up, the community were promised more openness. More transparency. The team were also promised this - but events in recent weeks have made it clear that even that isn't the case.
/throws gauntlet
I don't know what you've been accused of lying about... but if it was the comment that Nao made above, about Elkarte folks and the statement from the lawyers regarding copyright, I will state that, whoever claimed on Elkarte that "they were right all along" was hallucinating and has it completely turned around.
How could you forget the 9 page topic elsewhere on this?
Like the fact that no-one on the team is going to stand up, here, and actually admit 1) there's a problem, 2) that the problem needs fixing and 3) talking to the community about fixing it.
For example... this whole debate on the copyright. It's a pretty big issue that affects anyone who's ever contributed to the project's source code at any point, including people committing via GitHub with a DCO. But had it not been for Norv doing what we both agree was handled badly, plus (months later) taking it to a lawyer, plus having to be pushed multiple times, before there's anything resembling a conclusion.
Oh wait. Would that be the conclusion where things have been done and *nobody knew about it*?
This is one of the cornerstones of a community: communicating between yourselves. It's certainly clear that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding (mostly) and miscommunication (a little, but mostly it's not intentional, nor is it malicious in nature)
I found it hilarious that an official representative went and spoke to ElkArte (only to be accused of stirring up drama) and not to us, though by the time that had happened, I'd already been told by multiple people the way things were headed - and I'm not a team member, thank the deities. So there's another problem.
Neither do I.
Firstly, the phrase was 'mostly right'. Secondly, that is a dramatic oversimplification, but as we hammered out at wedge.org, they actually were kind of right, certainly more correct than what was there before.
This would be the same 9 page discussion where you spent a great deal of time telling me I was wrong, even though I pretty much called it the same way the lawyers did. Funny that.
We shouldn't even be having this conversation. It shouldn't be necessary because it shouldn't need me - an outsider to all intents and purposes - to act as a sort of watchdog, or play referee, however you want to call it.
We shouldn't be having this conversation because instead of talking to the community about it and explaining what was going on and why (you know, being transparent), there should have been an announcement which would have probably settled the matter. Small wonder there have been accusations of copyright grabbing, though they're probably as spurious as other claims. At least, I'd like to think so.
So, what's the real state of smCore? What's the real state of SMF 2.1? Your community is watching. They deserve to have their faith rewarded.
I think that might show more that not being on the team and only acting on "what I've heard" may show it's better if internal material stays being handled internal and release what's prudent to be released on own accord, as wrong conclusion can be drawn easily based on "what i've heard", as I think you know pretty well.
Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.
As you say, handled badly. I think there isn't much debate required on that.
The problem has been fixed. Whether that took a while to make sure it was done thoroughly or not is subject to debate, perhaps, but i'm not sure what people rather see: doing stuff without thinking or talking (ergo: handling it badly) or making very sure everything is done correctly... The latter usually takes more time. And sure, you may label that as slow. To me, I feel the end result is most important: is a problem fixed or not? Yes? Good.
I guess it's a matter of personal favor.
Regarding communication and nobody knew about it: True. But, I think you know why nobody on the team knew about the, now perfectly (imho) solved, issue.
You said it yourself, it was handled badly by a, at that point, third party.
I had actually hoped you would rephrase that post, I know you have seen that I had corrected your assumption. As such: "Neither do I?" That makes two of us.
Nobody denied there was a problem. It was just pointed out there was a major flaw in the extraordinary poor way it was executed, with which for the latter part you seem to agree.
And as you so elequently put: communication is key.
When there is none... Well... Can't expect something to change if a problem is not presented to the responsible team in any way. No psychics around here.
Another example of that is the recent security issue that was patched with SMF 2.0.4. We would have never known about it if it was not reported by the person who found the security leak.
And that goes for any type of problem.
Well perhaps, instead of playing referee or how ever you wish to call it yourself, you should actually leave it up to the team to work on releasing news when the need is there, how and how fast. Perhaps instead of saying everything should be done instantly, you should leave it up to the team to chose what, how and when to do something.
Perhaps your preference is to rush things and ours is not.
I by no means wish to offend you, but... Perhaps I will, by saying: I think you may sometimes rush things too quickly. For example the previous post you made was done in an extreme rush based on a wrong assumption. That's why I personally enjoy seeing people taking their time before taking action.
Does that really make SM/SMF so bad because the opinion on speed differs?
Like I said, I think that's a matter of opinion and personal preference. You can choose to do that differently, of course.
I mean, you started a fork because you have different ideas about the software and everything. While the way of working there may work for you I'm not sure why you think it should work that way for everyone. If my conclusion is correct on that you think as such, anyway.
Don't get me wrong by the way, I hope you don't see this as an attack to you. You share your opinion, I share mine. Before you, like on the messenger, draw the wrong conclusion on what I'm saying: I enjoy your presence and effort here, most of the time anyway lol, and it is a good thing you express your, passionate I might add, opinion. Let us be clear on that.
I do hope you respect my views on things as well, though. Mutual respect is important imho.
Indeed, they do. So rather than making assumptions, perhaps patience is more in order and let SM/SMF decide on when to release whatever there is to release if/when anything news is there to be released, rather than wanting people to rush it.
We're not in a rush and take time extensively to see what the best way forward is with all projects under the SM umbrella, including but not limited to smCore. Projects are being checked and when anything new is there to be announced: the community will always be informed. We haven't done anything else in the past, nor will we in the future. I'm not sure where you get the idea from that SMF would not keep the community informed.
But... when you're not on the team or NPO group, it is of course hard to know all the ins & outs on the status of projects, status of news releases, whatever.
The state of SMF 2.1 isn't so hard to find by the way: it is moving forward properly. Perhaps somewhat slow compared to other forum software out there, but SMF doesn't exactly have a reputation of being lightning fast with releases and I personally don't think there is anything wrong with that.
SMF 2.x is a rock solid SMF edition, making new releases simply for the sake of releasing is pretty much not how SMF has rolled in the past and I don't think it should ever.
You may disagree with the speed, but I personally do hope you do not disagree with the statement that the releases that SMF does make are very stable and as bug-free as possible. Perhaps personal preference on some pieces of code aside
That's all.
Of course it can. That's part of the problem. The fact that nothing ever seems to happen without some kind of issue flaring up to prompt some kind of action. See point about *transparency*.
I shouldn't have to make inferences about this stuff. This is one of the reasons SMF finds it so hard to recruit developers, because no-one wants to trust it, and with good reason given what's happened before - once they get behind The Wall, they see how it really is, how it's been for years.
I can only speculate that this is the big reason behind keeping things 'under wraps'.
You mean a problem that most wouldn't have even realised SMF had, had it not been pre-empted? A problem that some people are pretending didn't exist and that wasn't a problem in the first place?
A problem that those impacted by it may not even have been contacted about yet? (Those who signed a CLA and committed material while the CLA was still in force, they're probably assumed to have consented. Anyone else, e.g. DCO contributors... that's a different matter.)
Here's the thing. I shouldn't have to get involved. But I don't feel I can sit back.
Take the current copyright issue. How long has that been going on? How many months ago was it that a developer, who by then had left, whose access to the repository hadn't been removed, came back to quietly make a huge change? Without even getting into the 'how did it happen' malarky... why did it take so long to figure out that going to a lawyer was necessary? Why wasn't a lawyer consulted as soon as the NPO took over, to clarify what the NPO actually had copyright to? (Because if it was, none of this would have been an issue in the first place) But instead it was done over 18 months later, only after someone had already tampered with it.
This is the sort of issue that really gets my goat: SMF is floundering by any measure you care to name, and a lot of that is managerial issues.
There's slow, there's slow, and there's what I can only call burying heads in sand and hoping the problem goes away.
It's not an attack on me, nor do I see it as one. You're one of the few people I've had the pleasure of talking to who can actually attack a position, not a person. In reciprocation, I'm trying hard not to target a single individual for anything that's gone on here. I don't care who did (or did not) do something. I'm just annoyed that stuff isn't happening when if SMF wants to survive, it needs to start happening.
Well, let's see... no-one appears to be saying or doing anything about the fact that smCore is dead and isn't going to be relaunched in any practical form (seeing how all of its contributors left). So, what's the plan?
Here's the thing: SMF is a project in dire need of competent developers. No developer is going to magically come along and rescue the project, especially not with all the horror stories. I keep hearing talk of how it's all different now, but I'm just not convinced.
But anyway, the question of the hour: does anyone have anything resembling a plan at all? Is anyone going to share with the community what that plan might be?
What's left to do in 2.1? If anyone had any idea of what was missing, maybe you'd get some help.
Is there going to be a 2.2? Or will the next version be 3.0? What's the plan for these things? Is there a plan? Assuming there is a plan and someone has some idea what's going on, who's going to go build it?
Which brings me back to the small matter of the lack of devs. If you communicate with the community about the plan, there is a small chance - and it is, sadly, small, though not as small as straight up wishful thinking - that a developer might be inclined to get involved.
I am aware that even discussing this issue publicly is going to put potential developers off as things stand - but I'm also aware that people who go into something with the best of intentions might be soured by what they find. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
There's only one software going more slowly than SMF right now, and that's XenForo.
As for not having a reputation of going 'lightning fast', there's another reason why all the momentum left and took most of the competent developers with it. Not going 'lightning fast' is one thing, but taking 18 months to get to the level of perceived change in 2.1 seems... slow. I've tried 2.1, and while what there is is good (and due credit to the people who made it what it is), it doesn't really feel like a huge step forward.
Before anyone waves the 'but Wedge has had 2 1/2 years', yes it's had 2 1/2 years. It's also had tens of thousands of lines of iterations and coming up to 2,000 (SVN, not Git) commits, including a redesigned theme engine, a rebuilt from scratch package manager and so on. Small changes like what 2.1 looks like should not take 18 months.
I'm well aware that things take time, and that quality should not be rushed, but this seems wrong somehow.
It is pretty solid, yes, necessitating 4 patches in 1 1/2 years is good going (for comparison, SMF 1.1.x had 18 patches across 6 1/2 years, roughly 3/year). But if you're not going to release, need to keep in touch with users, to let them know what's going on. I find this very topic hilarious, given that it was set out by the previous lead dev last year about a plan that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
This is by no means any kind of official statement. It's simply my personal opinions. It is possible that the BoD or Simple Machines may disagree with some things I post.
Agreed that it's a bad way to do things, but it seems that nobody really tries to call out concerns in any way other than something that causes internal fighting. Not that it's a solid rule, mind you. Some people do actually bring up concerns in a less-dramatic way. However, drama seems to be the norm.
Would you argue for read-only access to the general public for all internal boards (save for some areas limited where sensitive info can be discussed)? Just curious on how transparent you feel things should be.
At least some of it is for "information management". Basically, determining what the best way would be to post certain things. Nothing nefarious, but sometimes just putting out raw info can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings, especially with preliminary info.
If it had been brought up in a less dramatic way, it might have been handled better. Maybe. We'll never know, since that wasn't what happened.
I believe the CLA would cover any adjustment of the copyright line. Also, AFAIK, the line simply updated the understanding to match the new DCO. The legal counsel was provided with the paperwork covering both the old CLA and the new DCO.
However, it's a good question to see if contributors need to be contacted/notified of the change. I'll forward that concern so it can be checked.
I think right after that change, it was figured out that it was really important to check with someone with legal experience on a proper wording. So, the answer to that would be on the order of minutes to hours. The insane fighting over reverting it to the old wording while a check was being done really delayed the actual work on obtaining legal advice.
Can't speak to that one, I wasn't part of the team that handled that stuff. I can only speculate that with all the other work of moving ownership, it was overlooked. Too bad it wasn't suggested to review it sooner.
Agreed, mostly. There are managerial issues, but it seems a lot of people involved take anything very personally. It makes it difficult to get anything moving when there are people fighting entrenched positions who don't like "compromise" or other such words. Add to that the seeming lack of desire to actually be part of the management of the project, and you wind up with a very few people who are overworked doing what amounts to a second full-time job in their spare time.
Seriously, it's painful to see people leave the corporation and give up their voting rights who then complain and throw a fight when something is done that they don't like. They could have voted against it if they were involved, but they gave up that ability.
Well, at least some of the time was re-assembling a development team from the pieces left after the project changed ownership. Also add in the time taken to get all the structure set up and having the developers discuss a roadmap. Oh, and the fight over pinning the future on smCore (and abandoning any development on SMF 2 except for security fixes) versus running small development sprints on 2.x while smCore was built. Good thing development continued on 2.x, smCore is basically dead.
I think that's enough for now. I welcome further discussion.
Well, I guess that's a matter of perspective.
Like I pointed out: problems cannot be solved if they are not put to attention of the team.
The methods of contacting the team are there, and there are a lot of them.
You seem, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, to imply that each and every *potential* problem that could be in SMF has to be known by the team. See my reference to the security issue that 2.0.4 patched how that's not possible.
I don't consider that to be anything strange. I'm not sure why "conventional methods" could not be used to make the team aware, though.
I do agree whole heartidly that it is sometimes excruciatingly difficult to get something moving around here. No doubt. But... That's what happens when you're working with volunteers.
Well, I indeed think you shouldn't have to nor do I think you should have. And just for the record: By that I'm not implying you shouldn't give your opinion. It's just a mere observation from my perspective that makes me conclude that there was indeed not much need to do that. We can obviously disagree.
I think we are a bit on a different page on that aspect, anyway.
I would disagree with the "behind the wall" thing, but making an educated guess here I think it will best to agree to disagree on that part, heh.
As for keeping things "under wraps", I must say I totally disagree with you on that.
Nothing important is being kept under wraps here at SM. You may disagree, again, on the speed... But that's a personal preference.
I think we're quite, if not very, transparent and share a lot with the community and I think me (openly I might add) debating this with you is quite the proof of that, but indeed: all in good time whenever there is something to be released eventually. First things first. Just like with releases, things are ironed out completely until there is no, to the best of the available knowledge, problem left and ensure it is fixed for the full hundred percent before moving forward.
It's almost as if you feel we should make the FTC a completely publicly visible board. For the record: I know that's not what you're suggesting, but you are making a imho unfounded accusation that things are being kept under the wrap but it seems solely based on your feeling that come forth out of a, in your eyes, speed issue. You mistake speed, or lack thereof, for deliberate silence. That is not the case though. I think this may be a problem because you are commenting on project related issues of which you obtained some information, but you cannot see the developments. In short: you are commenting on a team based issue without being on the team. That may lead to some misinterpretations and wrong assumptions because you cannot get accurate updates on the information you have been fed.
While opinions may defer on the speed, I'm not sure why to choose, I guess, not to respect the way SM/SMF handles it. You can disagree on how it's done and/or how fast, of course, but does that warrant releasing info ever so slightly this way?
You claim, while not being able to see everything, that it was chosen not to disclose anything, but that's something only someone outside the team can assume and indeed: speculate on. That doesn't necessarily make it a true fact, as it is not.
I think it all boils down to a difference in opinion. In the end, it's debating something in progress, unreleased.
If things would have truly been kept "under wraps", wouldn't I have removed all your posts and banned you by now?
Well, like I said, you cannot seriously expect a team to know about each and every problem a piece of software may have.
Again, I'm referring to the way we learned about the SMF 2.0.3 security issue leading to the 2.0.4 patch. If nobody talked to us: there would most likely not have been a 2.0.4 yet and the vulnerability would slumber still.
Many things, such as bugs (I mean, take the SMF 2.1 repo, if we didn't have beta testers... woo.
I won't apologize for the project being imperfect
The need for that became clear within a matter of days in order to sort it out once and for all.
Finding a suitable solution is another story, but again: While you may feel rush should be the way to go and a fix should be there within a matter of minutes, I don't think that is the way to go at all. Sure, it went slower than it could have went, but what does that matter if it is sorted out properly eventually? This is a volunteer project, it's not exactly people being paid to work around the clock.
Better make sure it's done right and, as this project doesn't run on water, without costing tons.
When the NPO took over there was a different situation, by the way.
The issue you are referring to was *not* an issue when the NPO was formed, or that is to say: Not in it's current form, it was handled differently at the time. Changes over the years however generated a new problem that was indeed not seen at first sight. And it pretty much isn't an issue anymore now though.
Well, you're free to call it what you want, heh.
You'd be surprised! And I hope you will be pleasantly surprised in the (near) future, even though you, like I am as well, can be hard to please in my experience.
Just... Patience! (I'd almost add "young Padawan!" to that, but you're near officially OLD. No worries, you don't have to thank me for saying that.
I am glad to hear that.
Well I could start with a horrible cliche here that has something to do with Rome, heh, but let me just point out that I don't see much threats to SMF's future. Even though indeed, the past is something to learn from and that's a good thing: better the process, better the environment. There have most certainly been some mistakes, some good things mistaken for mistakes and good things in a whole. It just strikes me that people in general usually solely focus on the negative instead of the good and the bad, and that on my part slightly annoys me heh. But, that would almost indicate I have no right to be on the internet; the internet is nearly all about complaining rather than applauding or a combination of those two these days.
All in good time.
Indeed it is. Or that is to at least say: More of them!
As for horror stories... Meh.
I think that perhaps a whole fresh load of devs might prove to be a different situation than the same people being involved all the time. Fresh winds and bla.
Yes.
Well, perhaps that's a good thing to ask the developers.
Duly noted: you, and probably more people, are in need of a status update on 2.1.
Granted, I do not think the developers will have any problems at all divulging that information and I would be very happy if people stepped up to help: it may speed things up!
For 2.2 and 3.0 and let me rephrase that in to a word that catches it all: A roadmap, I will refer back to the developers again. It's as they say not my party nor my area of expertise or prime activity.
For 2.1 there is no immediate lack of developers, but as always: we are looking for talent.
Well, I hope it does not. Nobody bites ya know.
But sure, everyone could be disappointed, but it can go another way as well: sheer happines to be working on a still very much promising project. Past is past, and the past has given valueable lessons.
Although that is not to say you may ofcourse 100% agree on working methods, I guess that's what lead to your fork spawning, for example.
I'll take your word on XenForo, I don't know them.
Well, in regards to SMF 2.1. I guess it's a matter of taste. And perhaps also a reason why you took the road of creating a fork.
Whilst SMF 2.1 might not be a complete rewrite and a new SMF from near scratch, I'm not sure if it has to be.
SMF 2.1 will be offering some splendid new functionality, rewritten parts, patched up current functionality, more in par with "today's world", et cetera. Is it a 100% new product? Nope. Does it *have* to be? Imho: Nope.
There are even still people on SMF 1.x (sadly, also on 1.0.x, although it does show how much of a robust product SMF is which makes me quite happy.) that haven't even touched SMF 2.x. It shows SMF on it's self is a highly solid product which covers the needs of many people. Had it not, we wouldn't have so many users, of course.
You're free to be disappointed because you had hoped to see far more changes and a 100% new SMF product, but I have a opposite preference: I like SMF sticking to it's root in large lines but DOES take wishes of the community, and of course: self made up new functions, rewrites, etc, in mind with the upcomming SMF 2.1. It's a blend of both... Innovating, renewing and changing while, however, sticking to roots that made SMF such a major succesful piece of software in the first place, the product that is loved by many people. I think 2.1 shows to be a perfect combination of innovation, based on community feedback and ideas of the team, and staying true to the essence of SMF itself by not making a 100% new product.
(My god, that whole part sounds horribly OMG MARKETING!!1! but it is my sincere personal opinion on the software.)
I mean, if you look at it that way: SMF 2.x wasn't a super huge change over SMF 1.x either: SMF 2.x also remained true to it's roots set out in SMF 1.x. Did it come with new functionality, a new design, large rewritten parts: Absolutely. But in essence, SMF is still SMF. The same is happening with SMF 2.1. Although, I ofcourse must admit SMF 2.x did have some *major* code differences over 1.x. (That is NOT to say that 2.1 doesn't have that. But, perhaps less than what you personally had hoped for. Which is probably another reason why you chose to make a rewrite of your own.)
Perhaps it could have been done faster, perhaps it could not have been. We had a few setbacks.
But... SMF 2.1 is getting closer to a release each day that passes. And that is a prime example of what I see as a good thing.
Yeah, you can certainly argue it's taken it's damn time... But you can also look on the bright side of life (yep, that was a reference.) and focus on happy thoughts: It's getting closer to RC status day by day.
SMF 2.1 will most certainly be released.
But, I think I sense a reference to something else in there... On that part, I would ask you to have patience.
You're asking to receive a basket full of cookies at once. There will be news.
Thanks
Agreed. Is the team acknowledging that there is a problem? Is the team acknowledging the fact that they have a serious problem with recruiting developers to build software (around which everything is based)?
Are they acknowledging the reasons that have been given to them repeatedly by different iterations of developer team about why they're leaving? (The conversation on Wedge suggests this is not the case.)
SMF or SM organisation? Let us assume the latter, as that is what I was referring to. And refers to my previous point.
Successive generations of developers have left. Each have cited the same core reasons why they have left, with modest variations, but the core reasons remain unchanged. This has been going on for years. I would presume the team are aware of them by now. Either they're choosing to ignore them or playing the blame game.
I would also note that successive people over the years have been blamed as the cause for disturbance and jumped (or pushed) out of the project. And yet miraculously nothing seems to change when they leave.
There is a fundamentally toxic mindset, deep rooted in the organisation behind this project. No-one wants SMF to fail, yet it would appear to be doing so in spite of that. Look back over the last three years. What has remained constant in that time, when the atmosphere was so unpalatable that devs threatened to withdraw their code? (Now, of course, you just have the problem of replacing those people.)
Then ask yourself why that is. Big corporations are slow to get things moving, because it takes people to figure something out, then it has to be run by the management, the more senior management, the risk people, the legal people, etc. That is the nature of big business.
SM is not an entity with that infrastructure. It does not have those constraints.
How come, then, that other projects of similar magnitude manage to get things done - when all the contributors are volunteers? What makes SMF different?
Sufficiently motivated people make time for their passions. And there are quite a few sufficiently motivated people in this ecosystem. They just choose not to contribute to SMF itself. Ask yourself why that might be. I have spelled out my reasons. They appear to have consistencies with the reasons others choose not to contribute here.
I call it as I see it, for better and for worse, and I'm prepared to justify why I call it that. The comments made by several project representatives do lead me to that feeling, but if you are saying it is incorrect, that's cool. I just want to see some evidence to back it up
Actually, the issue I'm referring to was an issue at the time the NPO was formed. I will say it again: those people who signed CLAs did not sign over ownership of their code to SM. They signed a licence to allow SM to use it and be credited for it.
The use of CLAs should have prompted someone to talk to a lawyer about copyright and specifically who owns what. If you're going to get picky, technically even before the NPO held copyright it was an issue, since I know I and others signed a CLA for both the LLC and the NPO. But when the NPO took over and updated the copyright statement, that would have been an ideal time to consult a lawyer on the proper course of action. This should have been done prior to 2.0 final in 2011, ideally.
I'm nearly 30. In internet years that's frickin' ancient.
From my perspective history just appears to be repeating itself. Different names, but the same general messages.
I'd love to hear what the good bits are.
They can be, but they're the best evidence I have (and it's public, too). Though it is my understanding that there was actually a proposal to formally shelve smCore seeing how there's been no commits in several months. (Github reports 5 months since the last commit.)
It would be a different problem, certainly. But it would be a smaller problem than not having enough competent devs.
Me personally, makes no odds. I can always look at Github for the code. But it would certainly ease my concern over the stewardship of the project to see that someone's actively at the helm.
And yes, if there's some indication of where it's going, people are more likely to pitch in and do something. Even if it's only pitching in to beta test - if it's known that there are no new major features left to implement, you will get more people testing.
Only if the past is listened to and acted upon. I see a lot of the same frictions amongst people as I did back in 2010.
There's been no release in a year, not even a patch of any kind, and the developers have been near enough inactive on the forum. The Internet Brands/XenForo lawsuit is hotting up, and they're in settlement talks on Wednesday. Whether they come to an agreement or not is neither known or clear. But it is our understanding that the XF team are actually flying out to California in person (previous settlement talks have been over the phone) for Wednesday, and it seems possible that XenForo will close as the result of settlement.
I wonder how many people know the story. I also wonder how many people know that had the devs at the time not lied to him, SMF would have successfully recruited both of us for at least a year, if not longer, because he would have persuaded me to step up.
That's the thing. It's not on par with 'today's world', or at least it won't be on release. It'll be on par with 'today's world' - tomorrow. That's the unfortunate nature of slow burning development is that you will likely be robust but never up to date. You need to move very fast to keep up with current trends. To an extent it is not entirely a bad thing. But it is something to consider and weigh up very heavily.
I never expected - or wanted - a 100% new product. That is the road to madness since then you have 100% new bugs to fix.
What bothers me is that we're 18 months on, after a 5 year cycle of development, with what might be called a public alpha. There are people legitimately concerned that SMF 2.1 won't come out this year or even the next given the history. This is what history teaches us - once bitten, twice shy and all that.
You wouldn't be doing your job if you weren't
When Wedge started, SMF 2.0 was still in RC - shortly before RC4 if memory serves. We set out almost a year before SMF 2.0 went gold. We were genuinely concerned that SMF 2.0 would be the end of the SMF line. We are still concerned that its long term health is not assured. We believe our concerns are well founded. But we'd love to be proven wrong.
Yes, but what next? I remember full well that 2.1 wasn't even supposed to be developed. It was only ever intended by those who started it in motion as a stop gap, though it has gone beyond that in the intervening months.
This is where a roadmap can be important.
Happy thoughts won't move mountains, only hard work. I have to say, I'm enthused that at least someone cares and is passionate about it, but right now it's talk. Show me something.
The other problem is that we'll never know how many people are thinking the same things I am.
I really want SMF to succeed because I want to see where it goes in the future differently to Wedge, to ElkArte, etc. I want to see where the paths lead, we all started from the same place and we're going in different directions. But as I've said, I can't in good conscience step up too much in terms of contribution to SMF, because it wouldn't be fair to Wedge. But I do occasionally share some of the things I've learned, and it's nice to see some of the things SMF and ElkArte have learned then gets shared with us. There *is* co-operation going on, but it's hard work.
You know me by now. I'm not really one for talking so much. I get down and get my hands dirty with the best of them. I dislike bureaucracy, and meetings and talking about things. Doing them is much more fun, most of the time.
COOKIE OM NOM NOM NOM
I want to share your optimism, it's infectious. But history taught me that I need to wait to see it before I'll believe the marketing hype.
My brain hurts...
One thing that I'd like to add, Arantor...
This "Transparency" thing is all to the well-and-good.
However, to the vast majority of people, what happens in the ol' team boards and all that stuff, is of little or no interest. They don't give a sh1t, as long as the software does something remotely similar to what they want it to do.
Sure, there are members, such as yourself, Nao and others, who might be curious about it, even if it's from a "Historical" perspective.
But, if I was just a normal member, whatever the Hell "Normal" is, I doubt I'd care, much.
We all, to a member, have different ideas about which direction(s) the future of SMF (The software) takes. As most know, I would've preferred SMF v2 never to have happened and for SMF v1 to have been expanded to include new features, if required, and other stuff.
But, I was probably in a minority of one, there, so SMF v2 came and did it's thang.
But, apart from the direction that the ol' software takes, do many, really, give a stuff about the rest of it?
I'd imagine that the vast majority would find it all tediously boring, to be honest.
No.
Does SMF want to produce a software used by many or just by a couple of people on the team?
Sorry, if it sounds harsh, but that's the truth.
And that said, the differences between 1.x and 2.0 are not *that* big in terms of code (proven by the fact that they still share several bugs). Yes, there are changes, I'm not saying they are exactly the same, though are not *so* different (if 1.1 is win2k, then 2.0 can be the equivalent of winXP).
Make a second account, without team access, take a look around and tell me where you can find any (relevant and up-to-date) information about where the project is going.
Open development is not just put the repository at github and wait. If you really aim to open development the last thing you have to do is close yourself in the ivory tower and "take decisions".
Unfortunately I always see procedures and delegation (e.g. "it should be the PM") here around, instead of actually stand up and do something.
this is not "delegation". This is something that SHOULD be ongoing and SHOULD be coming from the PM and/or Marketing. After all... project status and reports is part of the job. So, it's not delegation... but you are right, the PM should gather the information and then stand up and do it....
Also, I am uncertain what you mean by "imposed" or "procedure" or even "take decisions".
Keeping people informed on the status of the project was always intended to be the job of the PM and Marketing.
Firstly, if there are more transparency (I'm not saying *total* transparency, just *more*), it might make people realise that 1) the team is supposed to be part of the community, not by and large superior to it (my interpretation), 2) the team's self-imposed role is serving the community and 3) that for the project to survive, it needs to talk to the users.
How many people, other than the team, have any real input from the community? The devs have done a fine job but I don't see anywhere that the team invite specific discussion about features with the community. Involve the community. We do it, it really isn't that hard.
2.0 is *exactly* what that is. It is 1.1 with lots and lots of extra features. Only one thing could have been called to be 'removed' from 1.1, and that was replaced with something else that serves some sites better than what 1.1 had, and some worse. (I refer to permissions by board vs permission profiles.) But nothing else was actually *removed* from 1.1 in 2.0.
No, of course they don't. But that's not the point.
The point is, for an organisation that promised openness after so many years of being closed, the openness still appears to be mostly in name only.
No-one wants to contribute to a journey that they don't know where it's going.
Lotus 1-2-3 was awesome in its own way. I miss it.
It has seemed to me for a very long time that those who control the project have more say in what happens in the future than those who build it.
Yup. Better explanation than mine, too. 1.1 and 2.0 are not so different.
And we're back to a lack of transparency. The only place you can find anything like that out is by scouring Github, and not everyone wants to start off with that.
Hmm. This seems wrong somehow.
And they wonder why they can't recruit and retain developers.
Openness by name, closedness by execution.
I have been accused of causing trouble around here. But this is why I do what I do - because I will not just sit around and do nothing hoping that those who are 'delegated' the authority to act will do so.
Then there is a systemic failure on the part of those groups.
So please explain to me why we haven't seen anything from these people in months? The last update I can find from a non dev is in this board and dates from September 2012. Everything else has come from the devs themselves.
If these people are supposed to do a job, bloody well get on and do it. If not, don't interfere with those who are, i.e. the devs.
Btw, you should see Norv's dismantling of the copyright mess on ElkArte. That's some serious reading - and I thought I had a chip on my shoulder about SMF's mishandling of things.
Complete and total BS, Arantor. We had this dicussion elsewhere, and you keep harping on this, veen though you are STILL, as pointed out before, mistaken..
No one on ANY team has ever tried to tell the developers what to code or how to code it.
The **ONLY** "interference" in supposed development "powers" came over the approval to actually MAKE a release. The dev team has always had total control over what happens in the future of the project, despite mine and other's best efforts to try and get them to accept input from the other team members (and I will note here, emanuele and spuds DID take input for 2.1, so this is not directed at them at all).
As for Norv, I've heard from others and, as far as I can tell, she is has become delusional. Given her past attitude and actions, I have no respect left for her... and that's all I'll say on the matter.
As for doing the job... Yes. they need to get on with it. And for the last bloody, f'ing time... no one is interfering with the devs.
Actually, I'm not. Go read Norv's commentary on the copyright, maybe you'll understand. But I doubt it.
So in the first sentence you say that no-one has ever tried to tell the developers what to do. And in the second sentence you say that you had to get them to do something. Make your mind up.
I disagree. In particular I would encourage anyone to read http://www.elkarte.net/index.php?topic=162.msg1272#msg1272
You're so, so wrong with that statement.
I look at what Wedge and Elkarte are doing and I cannot conceive in my wildest imagination that SMF would ever do any of the things that either project are doing. Not 'that they would do' but things they are doing.
For example, I know full well that if I'd ever suggested the plans I had for Wedge's plugin manager for SMF, you would have shot them down out of hand, as you have even on Wedge's own forum. Never mind the arguments I presented for its defence, never mind the hassle it would save, but it limits flexibility and so you'd shout it down if it were to be suggested here.
Is that not interference? Would that not be curtailing what I as a developer feel is appropriate to be added to the base software?
Not all interference is blatant. Not all of it is public or even semi public. The fact that you're still denying it means you've convinced yourself it isn't happening, even when successive groups of people are all saying the same thing.
I skimmed that crap from Norv. I understand what she is trying to say, but I disagree and I still say that she is full of it.
And regardless of what Norv claims, no one has ever told the devs what to code or how to code it. EVER!
Finally, I did not shout down your plugin deisgn.
I commented that I feel that SMF's deisgn to allow editing of source files is one of the things that makes it more powerful than a straight forward plugin. I think that plugin designs are useful, especially for the generic user... I think that the SMF package manager should exourage plugin but support both. However, I never shouted your concept down and my comments are expressing my considered and expereinced position.
And this is the attitude that bothers me.
You say "devs should consider and accept input form the community members"
then you turn around and berate me for saying "devs should accept input from the team members"
So, what you are really saying is "Devs should be the king of all they survey. They should be able to do anything they want, without consideration to anyone else and they basically are the only ones that matter, ever."
That's the attitude that hurts when you have a mature product that has a much wider team than just "the developers".
Wedge and Elkarte can do that, because they are not actually a real product yet.
They have no distribution (outside of some testing) they have no community to support and no need for a team to distribute, document and support the product. Anything you have in the way of community, actually, is "borrowed" from SMF due to the fact that both projects are offshoots. If you were coding from scratch, I don't think you'd have more than a few members for curiosity and testing.
This is not to denigrate anything you have done. I've looked at wedge. It's cool. You and Nao have done an amazing job.
Your entire community is piggybacking on the previous and current success of SMF, though.
Actually, you did. I put forward all of my points - and there's even more that you didn't even consider, like security - and that was all dismissed because it's not as flexible as SMF, and no amount of persuasion would have changed that fact. Had I tried to implement it in SMF, you'd have screamed about it.
Correct. The fact you don't understand what's wrong with this is one of the key points of what's wrong with SMF.
Why are team members more special than community members? Are they more special than community members? If so, why?
More importantly, why should devs 'accept' input from team members? They should consider it, but no more or less than any other community member. This is the part that a lot of team members have trouble with.
We're the ones at the rock face, not you. If you're going to 'suggest' something, either do it at the same level as everyone else, or get down and dirty and pitch in. This is where it's gone wrong: the team feel they are better than regular community members at knowing the direction of the software - and that's wrong.
Go take a look at Wedge and what we do. We involve the community. We suggest things and get the community's take on it. We are not just the leaders of the community, we're *part* of the community. Something the team here generally cannot stand up and say. Some members can, yes. But the majority cannot legitimately make that claim.
In a community built around a piece of software, that's not entirely an unfair statement.
Here's the $64,000 question. WHY does it hurt? You didn't build it. You don't own it. Why do you have attachments of emotional value to something you didn't build?
But it's also a biased statement from someone who cannot see it from our point of view. We do try to consider everyone else. The fact anything gets built at all is proof of that small fact.
You have a funny definition of 'real product'. We've released alphas that are installable. That qualifies as a 'real product'. It also shows your arrogance a little.
Oh, enough of the snooty down the nose already.
Please do not mistake me for a fool. The previous statements fairly clearly indicate that you consider us both to be toy projects, whether you want to admit it or not.
Both projects have made more progress since their inceptions than SMF has in the same time. What does that tell you?
Previous, yes. Current? No. It's growing because of the *lack* of current SMF success and apparent stagnation of the project.
I would carry on arguing but I appear to be the only one who actually cares enough to fight the good fight. Everyone else relevant in this matter already moved on, because they've already given up on SMF's future. I'm one of the few people who was involved but who cares enough to spend any effort on hashing this stuff out. But I feel like I'm wasting my time because the people who need to change aren't listening and are being drowned out by people who think they're acting for the best but really making it worse.
I'm afraid that I can only see that from the side of the fence that I'm sitting on and it's not something that's ever bothered me, to be honest.
As long as people say exactly what they're thinking, I'm OK with things. As long as people read things in the way that the poster meant them to be read, everything would be fine, really. Pity we can't do that, very well, coz certain nuances are always gonna be missing.
Tiz a shame, coz I feel that a good proportion of the brown stuff that's hit the ol' whirly thing, over the years, could've been avoided.
I don't consider you a "toy" project. I do consider wedge to be a kick-off project that has no large community or need for a lrage amount of community support.
and "real product" means that, yes, you have an alpha... but it was a limited release to a select few. You do not have widespread distribution and you do not have a need to support thousands of people using your software.
You DO NOT try to "consider everyone else" (you, being devs in general, not you specifically).
Based on what you have said, you (and this is the direct you)actually believe that the team members should have **LESS** input than the community.
As for why devs should accept input from team members? Well maybe because we're all on the same team and all have invested ALOT into SMF. With the exception of you... I would guess that I have probably put as much time into providing support and other "background" stuff for SMF as any developer has spent on coding, in recent years (unknown and the other early developers are excluded in that comparison). You're right... I didn't code anything. That's why I don't tell the developers how to code. However, even if the team does not actually put code in, the devs should accept input form them, since we're all a team and the others are the ones who have to support and document what the devs code.
(note: nowhere did I say that the devs have to DO what the team says, I said that they should accept INPUT from the team)
This is where you (and the others) seem to have a falling down stroke and blind-spot. input != command.
finally
Norv tried to do the same with SMC... (and I will note, there was **NO** "interference" from anyone with whatever the hell they thought they were doing over there) and then she flaked, Guess she's just not as dedicated as you.
I'm still around but every time I open my mouth, everyone else puts on the "oh no, she again... more drama" chip before actually listen to my words. Besides, all the things said here has already been told elsewhere, it is so damn easy to attract new devs or at least show signs of movement... how many time has passed since the license change and 90% of the PHP community out there still doesn't know that SMF is now a truly open source software... unbelievable...
Do I still care, yes I do.
Does it hurt to see absolutely no signs of movement here? yes it does. The only "changes" I saw so far is Joshua been a dev now and the "open source" title next to the "Simple Machines Forum - Free" text in the <title> HTML tag. both of them are just cosmetic changes since Joshua has always been involved with development even though he only pops out from time to time.
As a plain mortal with no team access, I have no idea what are the plans for future SMF development. I have plans to take a look and re-factor the dump database feature but how am I suppose to start with it if I have absolutely no idea on whats next after 2.1?
I still has the (now vague) idea on refactoring the modsite here but how can I even suggest things when the team just sits there on their shell just waiting for stuff to happen?
To me I was raised with the idea that the Job is number one before the family, because with no job, you can not support your family (you guys).
Here it would appear the User is the Job and the Family is the Admins/Dev's/Team and although they are very close in relevance, without user's you have no Family or purpose, so the User's opinions/desires, should be considered at least in the mix. I know know you can not please everyone at all and in allot of cases, but they must be considered.
Not to belittle the Dev's and Team, the final decision should be/is yours to make.
There are many using SMF, and will continue to do so, so that means it's up to you all to get together and move forward, and there is no question my mined that there is a need for SMF and I keep repeating myself, but I have yet to find anything better thus far.. I would suggest that it be only moved toward completion with the newer web related requirements and the same security concerns as before and, ask the user's what they think, not the mod makers and the theme creators, but rather the User, for a while and see what comes up, I think most all you know what the other wants, so i would recommend not getting stuck on that, just for a while!
I like and I have said it before the 2.1 Alpha... and I'm sure what ever you guys get together on and make the, plug-in , mod or add-on or what ever can be dealt with, I'm 64 years old and I'm learning new stuff all the time.
Hope this helps! if I should shut up just let me know!
regards,
Maxx
It doesn't change the fact it's still a real product. Just because it's not in public release doesn't change that fact.
Oh you're good at wilfully misinterpreting, aren't you?
That isn't what I said. I believe the team should have an equal footing to the community. Not more, not less. They're part of the community. They're not this separate entity from it, unlike the current SMF model.
We're all part of this 'community'. What makes your say any more important than a newly registered member?
The only thing that gives *me* any say about it is when I get down and chip away at the rock face. Until that happens, I have no more say than anyone else. That's what being a member of the community means.
So you've invested a lot of time. That's hugely commendable. But does it give you the right to claim you have more say than someone who just started using the software?
Does it have an adverse effect where you're so used to it that you'll discourage change of any fashion because it's worked well thus far and so presumably doesn't need change?
Supporting a project is admirable, hugely so, and it's important - and don't let me encourage thoughts to the contrary. However, why is someone who has made a huge investment of time and energy more important to the project than someone who hasn't (yet, but might do so)?
More importantly, why is their opinion more significant?
Be careful with your words. You might not have told them how to code something. But you may have had an influence with how it should function - which isn't always in code terms. Similarly, you might have set out that things need to be done (or not done), which is influencing what is done if not how it is done.
Some of this is for the greater good, and yes, developers will often have to do things that are sucky to get the good stuff done. That's the nature of that particular beast. However, I have seen cases of ideas being shot down because they are not necessarily in line with the 'original vision' of SMF.
For example, a portal. I really can see the necessity of a portal becoming a core feature in the next few years, if not sooner. The world - and the web - is changing. Forums are harder to start running these days. But SMF is 'just a forum'. All the time it is just a forum, it's going to sink. There will be a change in the next few years too away from social networking as it stands, and forums might benefit, but those best placed to do so are the ones that offer more than just forum functionality. Even IPS is making IP.Board a *non core feature* going forward. Yup, that's right, IPB won't have a forum by default, it will be an add-on to the core.
It's like calling things unconstitutional because of some perceived bias, but society is not the same society it was 200 years ago.
Except I, and the others, are the ones who are on the receiving end of it. We're the ones at the rock face. And ultimately if you want us to build things, it's going to be on our terms. Not adhering to that caveat is what is costing SMF so dearly.
We build things in a certain way. We should be involving the community in discussion of features. But end of the day we're the ones building it. You can't force us to accept input. If we don't want your input, that's our call, not yours to make.
For example, say there's a security issue. Are we (developers) going to involve you (non developers) in discussion of how that security feature should be resolved? Unless it impacts on other things, the answer should be no. This same practice should really hold true for everything else.
Take today. I just implemented a new feature in Wedge to avoid language edits touching the language files. Did I consult anyone about it? Did I ask for input? Yes - on a minor side issue, which in hindsight wasn't even an issue. I assessed the needs, and I came up with a solution that addresses the needs I perceive - and I don't need anyone else telling me what is required, nor do I need anyone telling me that it isn't necessary because what is there is 'good enough'. (Clearly it isn't, otherwise I wouldn't have thought to do what I did.)
But I didn't open it up to the community for discussion for the most part. It didn't warrant it. I certainly didn't invite technical discussion on implementation (though I have raised one issue with Nao for his take because it impacts something else he's working on)... and I'm fine with that. I relied on my judgement.
If you feel you have to coerce someone into taking input, you're probably doing it wrong. (And I'm well aware that holds true for me too.)
What does that have to do with anything? It just meant I changed how I decided to use my free time. I'm not just some resource that can be exploited. Nor are any other volunteer developers.
I would also note that I remain here, offering support, because it serves my needs to do so. The fact it also serves SMF's needs is a side matter.
I try to listen to your words before I come to a decision about how to reply. I do think I don't communicate myself properly sometimes.
It has been 20 months since the licence change. Most of the wider community doesn't care anyway. SMF is considered very much a second class citizen in even in the forum world, licence changes notwithstanding.
There are a lot of people who care. My comment, somewhat flippant, was more that I feel like I'm the only one outwards trying to fight this battle because everyone else (whether they care or not) has accepted defeat and put it behind them.
I won't even get into some of the comments I could make.
Bingo!
How do you and I know that 2.1 won't yet include a major change that affects what you're doing?
There is an interesting analogy to be made there. It is, then, an exercise for the reader.
I do not ever see that happening. All of the major contributors have fled to other projects.
I haven't gotten through the entire thread yet, but I felt I had to at least cheer you for this! I'm a recent convert to SMF and I'll be completely and say I was and still am concerened, but morecurious about where this team/project/corp is going.
Now I did a ton of research on *free* forum software and with the time invested, I decided to go with SMF based on stability. That being said, I had to dig quite a bit at many different sites to gett a good feeling about the software because from what I could see from the access given within this site, I have no idea what's going on. I then joined the Charter group for various reasons, one of them, hoping for a bit more insight to what's going on. I haven't had the chance to thouroughly check the Charter forum, but from initial impressions, there wasn't much, if any, additional news/insight there.
I realize that my forum is tiny compared to most, and I'm a small fish here, but I still have to go through most of the ropes a big board does in utilizing, configuring, tweaking & modding the software and would love to hear the plans, get excited, and possibly do what I can to help. I'm sure there's similar people out there as well.
TL;DR: You're spot-on emanuele. Overall, from what I've seen, there hasn't been any significant news/content regarding the software on these fourms and things seem a bit 'stale', which doesn't tend to generate excitement/attract new users/potential contributors.
EDIT: THANK GOODESS the captcha's gone. Omg that was a pain!
That has largely been the case for a long time, as a more thorough examination of the board would indicate.
I'm in a similar boat, even if I am in a funny position.
And he's on the dev team, one of the people at the rock face.
Not sure the intent of this comment.
That being said, do I think emanuele, as a volunteer dev for this project 'owes' me insight into what he's doing, where he's going no, not exactly. I think that's what the team backing him & his fellows is there for.
I'm challenged with this myslef. While my forum userbase is tiny, the project(s) they support have had significant numbers of people. I, as the admin/dev/tester/customer support/etc have a really hard time communicating things and getting things done at the same time along with being a father and work. Just had an occurrance this weekend and I need to attempt to reconcile that once I return home (amazingly work doesn't block this site!). Again, as others have said in other words, I don't think any one person is at fault, it's an overall 'attitude' of the project that carries on to it's core assets.
To add to my previous post regarding initial impressions, again, cheers to emanuele and Labradoodle-360 for their quick assistance to a php noob like myself. I was very impressed by the assistance and dilligence in helping even a tiny board.
(I think that should be a new usergroup lol, screw 'big board' haha)
The intent is that if the *developers* are saying there's a problem... there's a huge problem.
Yup. This is one of the many issues that is boiling over. As can be seen, the team appears to consider the non-devs on the team about as important as the developers (and more important than the wider community in general), but they're not the ones apparently doing anything.
Oh, definitely. One of the underlying problems is that every year to 18 months, someone is the 'bad person' behind the scenes, a troublemaker and causer of drama. That person leaves, or is pushed, and the cycle continues because the core problems never get fixed. It's been that way since before the time I was on the team and continued after I left (yes, I was one of the people branded a problem back in the day)
Interesting comment. Why do you think this will happen?
Here, I'm just some guy. My real name and age aren't hard to find but it's not everywhere.
I think as people get more aware of digital privacy, they're going to move away from one-size-fits-all places like Facebook.
As places to waste a bit of time and share news and even photos and so on with friends and family, it's a valid place. But for anything in a niche, no chance, that's where forums have always been strong, doubly so if the forum can provide facilities that Facebook et al can't.
Also note that stories like http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/05/pew_facebook_churn_story/ are becoming more and more common.
It was a great way advertising to those who love to play, but for me the Internet was always A tool and not meant to be a toy.
Forums are way more focused on Topics of interest! and that's a good thing. Your private life and everyone Else's this is just that Private.
And I heard this on the internet LOL!
regards,
maxx
A family friend recently visited my mother and pleaded that we all get on Facebook to keep in touch. I had avoided it like the plague for years because of the identity thing, but I got sucked into it by the prevailing tidal forces.
To me it's way to gimmicky and has way too many bells and whistles staring you in the face. When I first signed up I was getting notice messages and emails out the a** every time somebody said something. I had to turn off a ton of notices, there are so many ways to get notified I'm still not sure I am comfortable with it all.
Also, I don't like a system where there are only "likes". There are no "dislikes". I don't approve of the type of environment where everybody only gets approvals - everybody gets a medal and an award artificial feel-good environment. Ick.
That reminds me, I need to go to my forum right now and smite somebody ...
Just took a quick look at your site, for the hell* of it.
Anyway about links............I always do them by dropping the url tags into the post first, then backspace one space, drop in the = and the url, then forward space one and drop in the text I want.
Less convoluted (IMO) than the process described in that thread.
[/off-topic]
*metaphorical usage of term that strictly describes non-existent place
OK, I'll point her to your advice. Thanks.
[/off-topic]
Realistically I don't see it happening because SMF has always maintained its view that it is 'a forum and nothing but a forum'.
An "Official" addon, perhaps. But, not in the core installation.
Yes, or an official add-on of some sort by the SMF team.
If I had the skills to be a developer, I'd make that basic install as small and as lean as I could. But, with that initial install, I'd have a "Question and answer" section.
"Do you want xxx installed?"
"Do you want yyy installed?"
If they want 'em, they get installed, with the forum. If they don't, they won't".
Obviously, there can't be too many options, or it'd just get too unwieldy.
Sadly, I don't have those skills. Nothing even approaching them.
That and a vast network of security, practicality and maintenance issues. And the people who go 'Where's my gallery' when they didn't tick for it to be installed in the first place.
Now I'm on both side of the fence and I love SMF and I also Like very much what the WEDGE is working toward and just just seems a shame to me that they both can not come together in some way to make a Kick ass system, that does it all. Aeva is already there, not sure what it's direct is , but I use it and it's nice so the gallery part is there! ( and the Guys at Wedge are keeping us up to date, in the transparent way!)
To me I see many possibilities both here and at the Wedge... there is plenty going on in the right direction, although SMF seems to be stuck some how, I just wish things could get together and move forward with the SMF and with the Wedge. Wishful thinking I guess!
regards,
Maxx
I can tell you right now that the circumstances will never allow this to happen.
regards,
Maxx
I know your coding is not the same and you goal as well!
regards,
maxx
People post topics, and others respond.
What more is there really, other than added features?
Like a handheld hammer, it's pretty much as good as it's ever going to get. It hammers nails. If you want to add laser sights or titanium hammerhead or special reflective paint or things like that, that's fine, but its function is what it is.
I'm not complaining at all, and I'm not asking for more here, but at some point isn't a thing as good as it's going to get, or at least 98% as good as it will ever be, for what it was designed for?
Off the top of my head, things that could improve SMF:
* proper timezone support, meaning weekends where daylight savings changes just wouldn't be an issue
* better mod support, without mods having to make file edits
* ability to edit email templates in the core
* not having most of the user preferences as 'theme options'
There are a surprising number of its features designed by programmers, seemingly for programmers and a decade of real use shows that those choices were not necessarily always the best.
That is a quite good one too:
but, heck that one is very nice too:
Would have enough money that one could be an option too:
But why not:
or
There is always space for improvement or alternatives. No matter what.
Yes, and that's how SMF may have been at first. Did I say it hasn't been improved emanuele?
No.
I clearly stated I thought it had been improved to this point -
But both cars do the same thing - they go from point A to point B. that's what they are made for. The second car does it better than the first in lots of ways, and that's exactly my point emanuele. SMF is at the stage of the second car. People post topics and respond as well as I can imagine. How does that get better from this point? How does the base function of the forum get better? Don't just post pictures, explain how posting and responding to topics gets better from the current state of the SMF forum software.
That's what I want to know.
Funnily enough I gave you several things. There are many more things that can be done on top of that. To add to my previous list:
* ability to reorder custom fields, as well as adding them to the member list
* ability to configure displaying of multiple badges
* ability to filter out posts containing inappropriate content, either automatically moderating them or even automatically preventing them being posted
There's also various mods whose functionality would be well served in the core, e.g. setting up automatically locking old topics, better handling of mass moves.
OK.
That's great. remember I'm not complaining I'm simply asking questions. But sometimes people have asked for improvements and I've seen them get shot down because somebody else says "That's fluff!" "That's an unneeded feature!" "SMF needs to stick to it's purpose and not get bloated!"
Getting back to the car analogy - one man's backup camera is another man's bloated car accessory.
I personally think if it's a feature that can be argued to have benefit to a decent proportion of the userbase, without a significant performance hit, it's probably not bloat.
But xrunner, I'm not here to convince you there is any need for features or things, I just wanted to say there is space for improvement even in the basic user experience of "post and answer" (there is, believe me).
Yep, you sure can. That then begs the question - what is and isn't necessary to make a forum operationally sufficient for it's intended purpose?
OK, fair enough. But as computers get more powerful the performance hit will decrease for a given set of processes, so really aren't we looking at mainly "features that can be argued to have benefit to a decent proportion of the userbase"?
Features are great, but at some point some person will chime in here and say SMF is getting bloated with too many features. You just watch. If that's true, then the functionality of this software is mainly maxed out - it's development is at an end. Like a four function calculator. There is no improvements that can be made to a four function calculator. It's does the four functions as well as can be done. The four function calculator is at a development end.
All that's left for SMF if that's true is updates to security, no updates to it's core function is required.
Remember (I want to state again) I am not complaining at all, I think SMF is about as good as it needs to be. I have no complaints at all.
That's true, at it's heart. But I do like some of the features that have been added. But truthfully I'm just stating I can't think of any more that need to be added. I'm open to being proven wrong though.
And I'm very keen to see what is up your sleeves.
What do you call operationally sufficient? What I call it and what you call it are likely two different things. By whose intended purpose are you measuring it? You might be satisfied with a basic forum. For the uses I want to make of it, I need specific features.
We have been looking at that for years. SMF 1.0 had all the 'operationally sufficient' stuff. Everything beyond that is improvements to various things with extra functionality that some people will need and others won't.
There are already people who won't move onto 2.0 for that reason.
It's as good as it 'needs' to be, maybe. But that implies that it's perfect, which it certainly isn't. Even if you just fixed the hundreds of bugs known for 2.0 only, that's still very narrow-minded.
How many more examples would you like? Sure, we don't *need* anything else. But it would make the software more useful for more users if some of it was included, without impacting it for anyone else.
And just think, SMF 2.1 is publicly downloadable and has been for months...
Now I know a feature to request - automatic real-time post backups.
No need to apologise to me.
SMF 2.1 + 2 forks have this.
I like SMF and the 2.1 alpha me not be what everyone wants, but it must be completed it in what ever its needs to secure where it meant to go at this point, as far as security and bugs, the other stuff maybe, brought up in the next version. hell I want to start using the 2.1 now for my live site, not a coder, but can't that much wrong with it as for functionality, and like I said Wedge and other possible projects can do nothing less to help it along, Someone needs to make derision! without getting hung up on trying to please everyone at this point anyway. I love all this stuff and will support it all in anyway I possibly can, but I'm getting old fast and you youngster will see the year past by fast, and I'm talking 10 0r 20 years at a time.
talkers and the doers always the same.
I'm learning more and more everyday at the age of 64, and you young guys have all the talent and knowledge to get these thing accomplished and I know you all can get it done!
cooperation is missing out some where out there LOL! :}
Regards,
maxx
Sweet idea.
I've been using these forums for 8 years and I finally learned to compose my longer posts in an external text editor. But today I had several things going on, I was making lunch, I was in a hurry to respond, and I deleted part of Arantor's quote in my post. I then clicked the back button and refreshed looking for something and what I wrote up was gone.
So, I just thought of something I didn't know I "needed" - automatic real-time post backups.
regards,
maxx
That's why I use the Lazarus plug-in for Firefox
Yes indeed.
Unfortunately, on my forum short answers are few and far between.
Now she tells me! OK I'll take a look at this plug-in, thanks.