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
7846
Off-topic / Re: At cross ends...
« on April 1st, 2011, 08:20 PM »
Quote
Currently it basically says "Powered by Wedge (SMF 2.0)", is it any different...?
Technically, yes. There is a check in theme_copyright() for the forum_version *beginning* with SMF, and that function has a big ugly notice that 'modifying this file voids your license', and for it to say 'Powered by Wedge', you must have violated the licence in some way, shape or form to get it to do that.
Quote
But what makes even more sense, is that there's no point in distributing themes for Wedge until Wedge can itself be redistributed
Very true.
7847
Plugins / Re: Plugin hooks
« on April 1st, 2011, 08:11 PM »
Quote from Nao/Gilles on April 1st, 2011, 07:56 PM
Pete, what about the template hooks I discussed earlier?
I saw it in passing, brain has been elsewhere dealing with family politics (I went to see my mother, dealt with the reasons I haven't spoken to her since last summer), need to have a think about it.
7848
Other software / [Flames] Re: Dream Portal
« on April 1st, 2011, 08:07 PM »
I don't see why not, really.
7849
Off-topic / Re: At cross ends...
« on April 1st, 2011, 08:07 PM »
The official legal position on using it on a live site: it's fine if you're a "team member" since that's not redistribution, but would have to replace the version number with SMF 2.0 (Wedge) or similar. Even that is a little grey, strictly speaking, since the theme_copyright() function doesn't exist the way it does in SMF, which means strictly speaking it violates the licence but provided that the copyright is output it complies with the wording of the licence if not the meaning of it.
Quote
Which brings us to developing themes -- you would have to wait until SMF goes gold before you can actually distribute those themes.
Actually, you wouldn't. Themes and mods have a specific exemption in the licence for this purpose (in fact, it's arguable that the exemption for mods and themes diminishes the power of the licence anyway, but that's another story) so you would be able to distribute a mod or theme, if they worked...
7850
Other software / [Flames] Re: Dream Portal
« on April 1st, 2011, 07:57 PM »
Quote
ou didn't answer my question. Why Fork it instead trying to be a part of the DP team and make it better?
Are you serious? After the crap Solomon gave me arguing the toss over a stupid performance tweak for all the wrong reasons? Not a hope in hell. I was previously on the development team of DP a long time ago and didn't contribute a single line of code because it was badly managed back then, and the way it's going, I don't want to go there.


As for the portals, I honestly wouldn't want to include any of the current ones, not because they're bad at what they do - because they're not - but they're lacking vision. They're all very similar with a lot of similar ideas in there and for the most part the differentiation isn't in their featureset but the ease of the admin panel which SP has above the others, so even though TP is more powerful, most people don't use it and instead combine SP with the download system and/or a gallery.
7851
Other software / Re: So, I've been asked...
« on April 1st, 2011, 07:55 PM »
Let me add one point.

We kept Wedge quiet because Kindred asked us to. And we did. We sat on it for months. Then I made (quite) a few remarks about it in December and was 'asked' to knock it off. So I did. Then on the day we make the website publicly accessible I put a signature link in.

Oldiesmann has not replied to me, but I'll give it a little longer then nudge him about it. The rule in and of itself isn't inappropriate, but it has to be applied equally.
7852
Plugins / Re: Plugin hooks
« on April 1st, 2011, 07:51 PM »
There's two separate discussions here.

The nature of TOX-G does solve a great many of the issues that we will have. It opens other doors that have to be confronted too, but all in all I think it could be a benefit if leveraged correctly.


I am going to say this once, and only once, so listen up.

The hooks are being considered an afterthought. Yes, in their original implementation they were. Scattering a crapton through the source deals with that. Even then, it's still going to be an afterthought.

Hooks by design are an afterthought. There's no way on earth you can build a hook based system that isn't essentially an afterthought. Can't be done, it's an inherent aspect of the design itself.

The thing is, I see some stuff about extending the use of hooks but even that's still basically an afterthought.
7853
Other software / [Flames] Re: Dream Portal
« on April 1st, 2011, 07:46 PM »
Because at the time we were looking at it, it was the only one that had a forkable licence, and seeing that live's around here, it sort of made sense to consider it.
7854
Off-topic / Re: Post count fever
« on April 1st, 2011, 12:35 PM »
Oooh, one more post on sm.org and I get to 44,444 ;)
7855
Other software / Re: SMF 2.0 Gold is released!!!!
« on April 1st, 2011, 12:34 PM »
It would have been funnier had I not already had Dime try this in the SMF Friends board on sm.org, linking to a picture of some gold bars earlier in the week...
7856
Other software / [Flames] Re: Dream Portal
« on April 1st, 2011, 09:51 AM »
A quote I have of relevance at this point... from http://aeva.noisen.com/6180/announcement-fork-you-smf/msg248317/#msg248317
Quote
We aren't doing it for you. I personally do not give two hoots if anyone uses it or not. I at least am doing it for me, for my use and making sure that I build it to cope with whatever others want to throw at it. So you can jump up and down and say you'll make the switch if we add a bunch of features that I at least am not overly interested in and as stated are implementing mostly to prevent people whining at us (less people whining about things that don't need fixing = less support hassles = more time we can actually code), but that sounds like an ultimatum to me, and I don't do so good with those.

Here's the deal: we're going to add features, that we want to use, that hopefully others will want to use too, and we release it. You install it side by side, try it out and if you like it enough, you keep it. Otherwise you ditch it and stick with your existing stuff.

That works great with me because you get the freedom to try without any obligation on your part, we get to release it without any obligation on our part, everyone's a winner. Except the people who tell us what we should or should not do, who will likely end up very unsatisfied because we're not building their dream platform, but building OUR dream platform that isn't quite up to their perfect standards.

We're not holding a gun to your head, we're not demanding you use it, nor are we begging for you to use it. When it's ready, it gets out there, and it's YOUR choice whether you try it, not ours, and throwing me a line of 'if you add x, I'll make the jump' doesn't inspire me at all. It actually makes me less interested because I have no time to cater to people who want it exactly their way.
7857
Plugins / Re: Plugin hooks
« on April 1st, 2011, 08:59 AM »
Considering that the only initialisation of hooks is simply an entry that goes into $modSettings, which is automatically cached, and even if it wasn't, it's subject to the fastest possible query it could be - and that on a performance system it's going to be loaded from memory via memcache, I see no reason to convolute the entire process for tests that in practice will not make it any faster in the majority of cases, and I'm not compromising general performance for outliers.
7858
The Pub / Re: Wedge & SEO
« on April 1st, 2011, 01:19 AM »
I bet the search engines have been very careful with such links because of the link juice that must flow in and out of those services.

I don't really like having a core feature reliant on an external service - but if anything URL shorteners just back up my argument that 'friendly URLs' are not that relevant.
7859
The Pub / Re: Wedge & SEO
« on April 1st, 2011, 01:05 AM »
My opinion is based on experience and corroborated by plenty of others in the industry, but show me something that disagrees that's based on something other than speculation and I'll listen.
7860
The Pub / Re: Wedge & SEO
« on March 31st, 2011, 11:27 PM »
That's the thing, people don't type URLs, they copy paste them. That means they can still see the name in it just fine, so it is not any more or less convenient, it is one of aesthetics.