Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Arantor
2506
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 5th, 2012, 07:34 PM »
Quote
Oh yes... It is indeed a form of protectionism, no argument with that at all. It was intended to be so... (and also to encourage people who are forking to use an truly open license. :) ) Although I would not agree that we're as bad as Linux is about it... lol
I never said you were, that's your interpretation. I said it was the same mentality, not that you had the same level of insanity :P
Quote
I saw the same was pretty new...   and I wasn't even commenting on the complaints in the system... I was complaining about the site itself.
1- I can't register. It gives me a database error when I try
2- there is no option to contact the admin to notify him of 1.
3- I am unimpressed with the organization of the site...
WordPress sucks anyway.
2507
The Pub / Re: Rearranging the languages/ folder
« on November 5th, 2012, 07:07 PM »
It wouldn't. I just don't want to do it unless you're happy wiht it.

The one problem with having it at the root is, as you sort of get at, is custom themes who almost certainly have their own language file(s) to contend with. But that's no huge deal, it should just be a case of updating the options that loadLanguage follows through on. Plugins will not be affected by this.

As far as updating goes, I'd just drag and drop the entire languages folder and be done with it, WinSCP is smart enough to cope with that ;)
2508
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 5th, 2012, 07:05 PM »
Quote
hmmm... I've never even heard of forumcomplaints... but that is kinda funny.
Although, looking at that site, I am seriously NOT impressed with the admin in the first place....
You realise that most of the submissions are not from the admin ;)

ForumComplaints is pretty new, but the merging in of the other sites (vbulletinsucks.com, xenforosucks.com) has sort of made it bigger.
Quote
Yeah, I can see your interpretation of the fork board rules (discussion so long as its not showcasing)... I can also see the other side (no discussion of non-open license forks)... and yes, the position is slightly hypocritical considering our previous stance on the 1.0 license, but the hell with that.
That's sort of the problem - rules like that need to be consistently implemented, or removed entirely. If it were clearly and unambiguously 'open source only' for discussion, that would have been fine (though you'd still have the 'SMF is scared of Wedge' group)
Quote
If Mitt can flip flop and give a different position every other day, why not SMF?
Because you, and SMF, are better than that.
Quote
As for being threatened... no, I don't think so. At least not the main group of us... maybe some individuals.
Oh, trust me, there's enough people who feel threatened by it. Consider it this way: if people weren't threatened by it, there would be no prohibition on 'closed source' forks. As admirable as it might be to promote open source, doing so to the exclusion of closed source is a form of protectionism. It's much the same mentality as Linux advocates (and, to a lesser degree, Android advocates).
2509
The Pub / Re: Rearranging the languages/ folder
« on November 5th, 2012, 06:09 PM »
Bumping. Anyone have any reason why I shouldn't?

I'll rename things to languages/english/index.lang.php rather than the current languages/index.english.php for example.


(This is in no way because I want to start on my own little language packs and want to make life easy on myself while I'm doing it.)
2510
The Pub / Hardening admin security
« on November 5th, 2012, 05:59 PM »
Another random idea.

So, when you go into the admin panel, moderation panel or editing other users' profiles, you're required to revalidate your password for one hour.

Not so much the moderation panel or profiles, but for the admin panel, what if instead of re-entering your password, it sent you an email with a one-time use code, on provision of which you would get access to the admin panel?

Same deal otherwise - revalidate an hour later. But that it is something a bit stronger than just your password. Reason that I suggest this, is if you have someone trying to force their way into the admin panel, they would have to do more than just brute force your password. (Quite a bit more, really)

Of course, it would be disabled by default, mostly for those of us on WampServer or whatever who don't have email servers set up ;) - if you already have access to the database anyway to be able to change this you're already powerful enough.
2511
Archived fixes / Re: Add plugin doesn't work
« on November 5th, 2012, 05:44 PM »
Quote
Also, right now we're using AeMe to upload plugins, and I'm not sure I can find a reason to switch to another system later.
I can think of several reasons, performance being the biggest, followed by having to butcher the crap out of it to save bandwidth while providing all the necessary meta data (there is a reason, after all, why SMF package servers provide XML files, it's so that the relevant information can be provided to users without having to crawl the actual page, and there is a bunch of stuff around that), not to mention the fact that I have various levels of thoughts about things like auto-updating packages, which specifically requires doing a ton of stuff that AeMe currently doesn't or can't support without a lot of work (and none of that should be in the core)

I have thought about simply removing it entirely, but all the time it's there, I can keep telling myself that I'll finish it - if it is removed, I'll stop thinking about how to make it work well, which also means not worrying about things like auto updating.
2512
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 5th, 2012, 05:41 PM »
Quote
Hopefully the rest of us who are willing to let bygones can overrule those who are stills stuck. :)
Given how quickly the topic was moved, just simply stating that Wedge is in alpha... and the fact that your own rules appear to have been creatively interpreted (where have I encountered this before? :P)...

Let's see what I mean.
Quote
* This board is for discussion of open-source forks of SMF 2.
* You may showcase your fork here, if it is an open-source fork of SMF, and if you have followed the requirements of SMF's license agreement.
* You may not showcase or advertise any non-open-source fork.
* You may discuss, analyze, compare, contrast, and post benchmark results comparing SMF and any SMF forks.
* Discussions must remain civil, respectful, polite.
* Once a moderator has been appointed, he or she will encourage posters to state their points in friendly and respectful ways.  The moderator may delete any posts which are not in keeping with the site's use policy. The moderator may request rewording of, or even delete, any posts which serve as advertisements for non-open-source forks of SMF.
The way I read this is that discussion, analysis, comparisons, contrasts and benchmarks of *any* forks are permitted, provided they are not done in a way that could be seen to be showcasing. A link wasn't posted about Wedge initially, therefore from my perspective it wasn't showcasing or advertising, it was some discussion. Though the fact it was moved into a place where more people will see it is fantastic because it's free advertising from people who wouldn't have seen it before.

Thing is, though, it doesn't matter whether Wedge goes open source. There are certain idiots who will shout down anything we do because it's not SMF doing it, and/or it's us doing it. And that's ALWAYS going to be how it is.

I would get into how hypocritical it is of SMF to consider their OWN LICENCE not open source when they spent so long claiming it was. cf SMF's own page on the subject - http://web.archive.org/web/20110721224123/http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php - but all the time SMF's doing it, it's allowed, obviously. One rule for us, one rule for them, etc.

Tell you one thing of interest, back in July 2010 when this all started, when Nao and I were talking about it... I wasn't originally interested in forking, even then as I knew about the impending licence change. I was going to start my own from scratch, because it would have avoided all this crap.

But since we're here, let's see about that forks board. Isn't it interesting how there are only two surviving forks, and the only one that anyone wants to talk about is the one that you (collectively) won't let people talk about? More than one person has come to me and said that it seems to them as if SMF feels threatened by Wedge.

Mind you, I still find it funny that forumcomplaints.com doesn't care enough to create a category for SMF complaints.
2513
Archived fixes / Re: Repository logs
« on November 5th, 2012, 05:13 PM »
http://wedge.org/pub/bugs/7628/add-plugin-doesn-t-work/

That includes the repository stuff.
2514
Archived fixes / Re: Prettify Action URLs
« on November 5th, 2012, 04:24 PM »
And mod_rewrite is installed?
2515
Features / Re: Something really strange just occurred to me
« on November 5th, 2012, 04:15 PM »
That's essentially what I'm proposing, though you absolutely *have* to have a special group of some kind. Just like you absolutely *have* to have a zero post count group. Otherwise bad stuff starts happening (though, ironically, this would be less bad than what currently happens...)
2516
Archived fixes / Re: Membergroup settings
« on November 5th, 2012, 03:39 PM »
Essentially it's a hacked up version of 'Switch Permissions'. What would be better is if this wasn't in the core but implemented as a plugin.
2517
Archived fixes / Re: Modify board: "All groups who can see a board can enter it as well"
« on November 5th, 2012, 03:38 PM »
It could, I guess, but right now, no. It doesn't help that there's nowhere to store it - and it would have to be customisable per language.
2518
Archived fixes / Re: Prettify Action URLs
« on November 5th, 2012, 03:37 PM »
Sounds like the .htaccess file is missing.
2519
Features / Re: Something really strange just occurred to me
« on November 5th, 2012, 05:43 AM »
Quote
I should mention it's two different ideas to solve same problem. One I thought would be more efficient than other (Depending if query has to look up main configuration or not, or use vice versa, whichever is better).
Sounds to me like you're trying to solve a completely different problem.
Quote
Exactly. I ended up thinking of making Regular Groups "almost not special", just something that affects signing up and displays on forum index page. Since pretty much everything else already implemented. :/ I didn't mean for this to be a "Do away with Regular Member groups" idea.
But that's exactly what you're proposing, albeit with a 'make a different group special' flag, which does make things more complex than they need to be.
Quote
Something useful for people managing a board that houses four different websites that acts like four different boards(possibly, different index page and customized sign up page). But the websites are related in some way (Centralized for external features not-in-the-forum-content such as website homepage). People would be lost/confused on boards that's so big and the website author may want four different boards, but Centralized database for ease of management and future implementations of new external/internal codes that would work with this software.
That's a pretty convoluted justification, especially since even that won't work with what you're proposing. Even with that hellish configuration, you're still going to be keeping group configuration separate, so you'd just have the same 'Regular Members' group in each of the 4 sites. Or, possibly even just have one installation with four themes on it depending on what you're trying to do.

Either way, you're suggesting a big change that affects a *minute* percentage of people.
2520
Archived fixes / Re: Modify board: "All groups who can see a board can enter it as well"
« on November 5th, 2012, 05:28 AM »
In other news, I fixed it in r1770. Complete with having a warning instead of otherwise fudging the last post.