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 - Nao
8071
Features / Re: New revs
« on August 18th, 2011, 03:07 PM »
rev 949
(67 files, 57kb)
* More smf/simplemachines/etc. conversions... Did a lot of cleaning work, too, such as fixing the DTD headers, removing AeMe version checks and removing a couple of eggs I found while doing the changes. The end is in sight. NOT TOO SOON!! (about 64 files...)
* Nearly done with integrating the AeMe installer into Wedge's. (db_aeva.php, install.sql)
* Added a couple more allowed keywords to the spell-checker. 'Wedge' is proper English, but it's a multilingual checker. (Spellcheck.php)
(67 files, 57kb)
* More smf/simplemachines/etc. conversions... Did a lot of cleaning work, too, such as fixing the DTD headers, removing AeMe version checks and removing a couple of eggs I found while doing the changes. The end is in sight. NOT TOO SOON!! (about 64 files...)
* Nearly done with integrating the AeMe installer into Wedge's. (db_aeva.php, install.sql)
* Added a couple more allowed keywords to the spell-checker. 'Wedge' is proper English, but it's a multilingual checker. (Spellcheck.php)
8072
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 18th, 2011, 01:19 PM »
Then in the spirit of what Pete noticed, that board is full of little Harry Potter wannabes. "Wedge? Why can't I name it? Wedge, Wedge, Wedge!" :lol:
8073
Features / Re: More stuff for the removal of
« on August 18th, 2011, 01:18 PM »
Shorthand date: Yes and no. I like always having 'Today' specified, but Nightwish's fork and xenForo go even further (à la Facebook) by giving fully relative dates. I don't like this either, but I think it'd be interesting to find the best of both worlds. Maybe by having the relative date on hover, or something? Thing is, I'm not excited with the idea of updating the dates every minute, so technically having a relative date show up on hover would allow JavaScript to only be run when hovering. I don't know. This warrants discussion.
- Members per page: +1. Possibly could be made into a plugin or simply a hidden setting, if we keep the number stored somewhere... But having the number set in the UI is something that's pretty much overkill.
- Online/offline: +1.
- Admin security: Yes and no, again. You're mister Security, so maybe you can tell me if this is realistic: offer to enter a list of IPs that are free from confirming their password. Or even just the 'one' IP, if the admin is on a static IP...
- Reporting: +1.
- Members per page: +1. Possibly could be made into a plugin or simply a hidden setting, if we keep the number stored somewhere... But having the number set in the UI is something that's pretty much overkill.
- Online/offline: +1.
- Admin security: Yes and no, again. You're mister Security, so maybe you can tell me if this is realistic: offer to enter a list of IPs that are free from confirming their password. Or even just the 'one' IP, if the admin is on a static IP...
- Reporting: +1.
8074
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 17th, 2011, 10:51 PM »I have been advised this by someone who is currently on the team, who is not involved in the public discussions on either side and who has shown me more willing to listen to my concerns and actually see where I'm coming from, even if they do not agree, they at least take the time to see it from my point of view.
I know that many at the SMF team are still friendly to us, and I certainly wouldn't put the blame on them should the situation worsen. But after K@'s departure, there are no people in the BOD who are clearly neutral to us (let's not even ask pro-Wedge.) So I can hardly believe the situation is being examined in an unbiased way.
Now, this person assures me that it was done in good faith to encourage open source, and I believe them.
Just because we're not a friendly fork doesn't mean we're here to fuck with them. What did I say in the FAQ about this, already? Something along the lines of "we didn't choose to go hostile, they did."
Our choice of license was only a reaction to their behavior. If a project manager bans you from his site, strips you of your badges, removes your beta tester accounts (and much later starts to censor your profile and mod page without any valid, clearly stated reason), would you consider them as "friendly" to you? Would you want to give them the benefit of the doubt? I gave SMF the benefit of the doubt 3 years ago.. Then 2 years ago... Then a year ago... Then my ass started to hurt a bit too much.
Now, it's all about one thing: who runs the project now? And do they think about the best way to serve their users, or the best way to serve their own interests.
So, I'm calling for a line to be drawn in the sand on this point. I recognise that the team have made an honest attempt for them to actually accept forks as not being competition in the original sense of the word, but as stablemates from which they can learn things, and that the forks can learn something from it. We've learned a great deal about SMF in this process, some of it rather good when you think about it.
I also recognise the fact that they have been civil towards us, if not entirely respectful in appearance, and I would urge any members thinking of posting to consider very carefully what your motives are in doing so.
As has been noticed, this is a step forwards for SMF. It's not a huge step, it's not as big as I would have liked, but it IS a step forward, even if it was a bit of a stumble. Please don't try and undo their work on this, because it does have the potential to go somewhere.
I guess the fact that another fork came out was the main factor that triggered the need for that board.
The team do not understand why we are so reticent at giving back. I doubt they ever will understand, but that's not our problem.
I also doubt we fully understand their view,
it's because we have taken the bold step of stepping back on the licence, and like it or not, the old SMF licence isn't open source - and they're honestly trying to encourage actually open licensed creations.
I am given to understand that when we become BSD or similar, we will be treated equally,
SMF. Wedge. People. Everyone.
Fight with knowledge -- fight for knowledge.
Ignorance is the worst plague of all.
That will be my final statement for tonight.
8075
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 17th, 2011, 10:28 PM »Do you, AngelinaBelle, personally and without any representation on behalf of the SMF team, understand why it is that we're so upset generally as to work on Wedge, and why we are so against using BSD at this time?
We did team up together because we understood each other after we'd both been screwed by both the SMF team and vblamer. You wanted to create your own forum system from scratch, and I wanted to take a shot at forking Wedge, which you eventually agreed to do. So the original goal wasn't even to fork SMF. It was simply to do something together that would be free from the stupid rules at SMF. The fact that it became apparent around the same time that SMF was going to go BSD, was the main thing that convinced us to do a fork instead of our own thing.
A year later, I can confirm it was the right choice, because what we have right now is a state of the art forum system that really stands against the commercial competition. It will probably need an extra year of work to outdo them, but we've left SMF behind, and you can really see the effort we put into Wedge -- it transpires from everywhere, from the first contact to every little detail here and there. We made it our own and it's got its own philosophy. One which happens to be incompatible with SMF because we wanted to explore directions SMF was unlikely to ever take.
Now, if SMF wants to get a piece of Wedge's code, legally and everything, they can just take it from Nightwish's fork. Not that his fork uses any of our code -- but it seems pretty obvious to me that he shares many aspects of our visions, trying to improve the UI and make the forum run faster. He implemented things differently, but if SMF was to follow his lead, I suspect there would be no reason for SMF to want to take from us at all.
(And no, the Wedge licence is not "unclear".
It is the original SMF licence, with the names changed. Oh, and a clause to prevent two specific jackasses from using the software, because they have demonstrated admirably that they are unpleasant to ever deal with.)
I particularly like the second post. In case any of you didn't follow (and none of you saw our recent PM exchange), she was addressing me and Pete in particular over our refusal to implement threaded view in Wedge. I confirmed to her by PM that I had found ideas that might allow me to implement threaded view and I'd like to try and do that in the future, if only as a test -- and she basically told me to screw myself, it was too late etc... :^^;:
You know -- as if it was an *honor* to have her scream at us constantly on our boards. Sure, we're into that ;)
Sorry if the invitation felt loaded. It would have been rude, since you were musing about an open license, to have left you out. Perhaps it is rude to make an invitation with conditions, and incorrect to term it "cordial". Were I Miss Manners, I surely would have done better.
Heck, *I* would do well to learn from your manners. But then again, I'm not particularly well known for my people skills. ;)
| 1. | Sometimes, I'm so full of myself, I'll write complicated sentences. Don't bother. |
8076
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 17th, 2011, 08:46 PM »
Okay... So I'll read and answers these posts in order, and merge all of my double-posts. Hopefully I'm not too redundant.Quote from Arantor on August 16th, 2011, 07:42 PM We never said it in public, though. We said it countless times in the private boards, but I forgot to mention the exact license choice when I wrote the FAQs.
So, yes, Wedge has a license that is 95% the old SMF license. It also adds a special clause (informally called our 'hall of shame').Quote Well, I suppose it shouldn't stop other Wedge Friends from discussing it over there and answering questions. I completely trust they'll do their best. Wedge is not Arantor/Nao-centric... Wait, or is it? :lol:Quote They never banned the 'SMG Team' account, even though I have access to it (it's a Dragooon+Nao shared account.)
I never used it after I was banned, though... I tend to respect bans, you see. I didn't post at sm.org for fun. It will like an unpaid job for me. If they don't want me to work for them, then why I force them? I'm just using my work for my own self now...
Quote from Jeff Lewis on August 16th, 2011, 08:07 PM Bah. That's never going to happen... Even with vblamer gone from the team, the forum still has him and Akyhne slacking around. Flame war potential: explosive. Even I am not interested in wasting my time like this.
Quote from Arantor on August 16th, 2011, 08:38 PM Still no official answer on that innit...? ::)Quote They never would have. Back in February 2010 everyone said no. Phoenix/Jaelta was born (and died, as all phoenixes do) out of this, as BSD. It was really a legal loophole that forced them to go BSD... But they tried the make the best of it, I'll give them that. I just don't wanna hear things like "the SMF team was very much excited to go BSD". Over their dead body, sure. It happened that way and they learned to live with it.Quote And may I point out that, had we not initially said that we weren't going BSD, we would have been linked to in their boards? Is this we get 'thanked' for not deceiving anyone...?
Technically we haven't released anything, and we're still the ones who have to 'prove themselves'.
Reminds me a bit of xantSpell announcing a release, and vBullshit waiting to file a suit, just because they were upset about their ex-star developer trying to give them their change back...Quote (And still is, despite me discouraging its use :P)
Quote from Arantor on August 17th, 2011, 01:28 AM He's a pretty funny guy... Oh, and we fought a few months ago about whatever was I don't remember and don't care about. So, you can put him into the "anti-Wedge" category. He probably never even read our feature list... He's just anti-us. I admit I don't give a damn, though. Every time I read one of his posts, he's bitching about something.Quote At least it shows a small dose of realism.
If they're gonna have a fork board, Wedge is bound to be discussed there -- because it has the longest history, because many ex-SMF teamies are in our team (and those who are still friends with them will push for Wedge to be allowed to be discussed openly), and simply because it is what it is. The SMF team did us a lot of wrongs-- if they don't sympathize with us eventually, they'll only make things worse in the future.
Technically Wedge has the *old* licence, not BSD.
So, yes, Wedge has a license that is 95% the old SMF license. It also adds a special clause (informally called our 'hall of shame').
Just one more thing: they knew full well neither of us could post over there anyway, which does make it a farce;
Nao is post banned, I don't have an account, and if I did, the odds are it would be a shared account which would then be seen as circumventing a ban and subsequently banned in itself.
I never used it after I was banned, though... I tend to respect bans, you see. I didn't post at sm.org for fun. It will like an unpaid job for me. If they don't want me to work for them, then why I force them? I'm just using my work for my own self now...
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 08:28 PM
Well, I am clearly not a team member over there but I can certainly poke around and see what's up. Also, sent you guys a PM.Quote from Arantor on August 16th, 2011, 08:02 PM So, are they going to unban Nao so he can participate then?
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 08:30 PM
We are using the SMF licence that the team declared was in their view an open source licence, and for us to be decried as not open because of that seems to me to be a double standard.
The reason for the switch to BSD was not because 'it's a good idea'. The team didn't exactly have a lot of choice in that discussion and had the choice not been forced on them by the original copyright holders, I doubt the team would have moved to BSD until the next version of SMF.
Anyway, that's beside the point. The fact is you've made it pretty clear that non open source works are not welcome even when they would completely and in all meaningful ways comply with the licence as stated. The fact that we have chosen not to go to a true open source licence is to protect our investment of time from being abused by a group of people that were more than happy to make use of our contributions all the time we were contributing them but were stonewalling us as soon as the contributions stopped flowing.
Technically we haven't released anything, and we're still the ones who have to 'prove themselves'.
Reminds me a bit of xantSpell announcing a release, and vBullshit waiting to file a suit, just because they were upset about their ex-star developer trying to give them their change back...
Never mind that Nao worked on the single most popular mod for SMF in its history.
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Just read the reply from Motoko as well, nothing short of what I would expect from him, pointing out that as we're not open source, we shouldn't be being discussed there...
Mind you, they have made a list of forks and Wedge is present on it, but unlinked. This, I guess, is at least the most credible and honest demonstration I've seen yet to their apparent commitment to friendly competition.
If they're gonna have a fork board, Wedge is bound to be discussed there -- because it has the longest history, because many ex-SMF teamies are in our team (and those who are still friends with them will push for Wedge to be allowed to be discussed openly), and simply because it is what it is. The SMF team did us a lot of wrongs-- if they don't sympathize with us eventually, they'll only make things worse in the future.
8077
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 17th, 2011, 08:39 PM »
Heck, given how we're incompatible with current SMF mods, we could even go GPL just to annoy everyone :lol:
8078
Off-topic / Re: Post count fever
« on August 17th, 2011, 08:23 PM »
Congrats to Pete for passing 6k posts!
DS and Dragooon are in fight, who will reach 1000 first? ;)
DS and Dragooon are in fight, who will reach 1000 first? ;)
8079
The Pub / [Archive] Re: Logo Madness
« on August 17th, 2011, 08:11 PM »
I pretty much agree with Bloc here...
I'd just like for Google or Facebook to acknowledge people who *don't* want to mix two of their lives together. Allow for multiple accounts (even two would be a plus.) Allow for accounts that use a nickname -- add a checkbox where we can say, "this is a nickname". Heck, force us to add a real name if you want, but don't force us to show it. (I think Google+ does that, so that's cool.)
I'd just like for Google or Facebook to acknowledge people who *don't* want to mix two of their lives together. Allow for multiple accounts (even two would be a plus.) Allow for accounts that use a nickname -- add a checkbox where we can say, "this is a nickname". Heck, force us to add a real name if you want, but don't force us to show it. (I think Google+ does that, so that's cool.)
8080
Features / Re: New revs
« on August 17th, 2011, 08:02 PM »
rev 946
(9 files, 11kb)
* Simplified upgrade script DB version check. Why are we updating the upgrader already...? Fixed what's likely to be a SMF bug ($db['version'] being considered in command-line as the current version instead of target version). Also, shouldn't that extra version check codeblock be removed? (upgrade.php)
* Simplified install script. By two lines. We don't need to eval the thing, as we'll run it every time... (install.php)
! Version number fixes. (install.sql, readme_*.html)
- $database_version is no longer used. (create_backup.php)
* French translation. (ManageSettings.french.php)
(9 files, 11kb)
* Simplified upgrade script DB version check. Why are we updating the upgrader already...? Fixed what's likely to be a SMF bug ($db['version'] being considered in command-line as the current version instead of target version). Also, shouldn't that extra version check codeblock be removed? (upgrade.php)
* Simplified install script. By two lines. We don't need to eval the thing, as we'll run it every time... (install.php)
! Version number fixes. (install.sql, readme_*.html)
- $database_version is no longer used. (create_backup.php)
* French translation. (ManageSettings.french.php)
8081
The Pub / [Archive] Re: Logo Madness
« on August 17th, 2011, 04:55 PM »
Thanks, but you didn't read the guidelines did you? :whistle:
8082
Features / Re: New revs
« on August 17th, 2011, 04:34 PM »
rev 943 -- OMG, it's like we're racing to the top! Love that!
(5 files, 10kb)
* French translation - new items and fixes. (ManageSettings.french.php, Help.french.php, Admin.french.php)
! $txt['allow_hideOnline'] makes an odd reference (in both languages) to 'non-administrators'. It should be 'allow to hide from non-admins', not 'allow non-admins to hide'. Removed non-admins altogether because it's pretty obvious that admins have all rights over their server. (ManageSettings.language.php)
* Converted the custom profile JavaScript to jQuery (looks like I forgot to complete that one long ago!) (Admin.template.php)
! If #mask was hidden in the custom profile field form, a linebreak would be shown in its place. (Admin.template.php)
@ Pete> I'm not sure it's semantically all right to use a theme menu string in a member menu... ^^; I won't fix it because I'm against giving too many strings to translate to users, but I doubt both menu entries would translate identically in all languages... Also, duly noted for the changelog typo. It's not like I'm never doing that myself :lol:
(5 files, 10kb)
* French translation - new items and fixes. (ManageSettings.french.php, Help.french.php, Admin.french.php)
! $txt['allow_hideOnline'] makes an odd reference (in both languages) to 'non-administrators'. It should be 'allow to hide from non-admins', not 'allow non-admins to hide'. Removed non-admins altogether because it's pretty obvious that admins have all rights over their server. (ManageSettings.language.php)
* Converted the custom profile JavaScript to jQuery (looks like I forgot to complete that one long ago!) (Admin.template.php)
! If #mask was hidden in the custom profile field form, a linebreak would be shown in its place. (Admin.template.php)
@ Pete> I'm not sure it's semantically all right to use a theme menu string in a member menu... ^^; I won't fix it because I'm against giving too many strings to translate to users, but I doubt both menu entries would translate identically in all languages... Also, duly noted for the changelog typo. It's not like I'm never doing that myself :lol:
8083
Features / Re: New revs
« on August 17th, 2011, 03:38 PM »
rev 941
(12 files, 12kb)
- The Settings files shouldn't have a version number in them, as they're not intended to be upgraded later. (Settings.php, Settings_bak.php)
* A few more contextual changes from Simple Machines to Wedge. (*/readme.html, ManageServer.php, ModerationCenter.php, Themes.php, Admin.language.php)
* French translation. (Admin.french.php, ManageSettings.french.php)
! Warm's windowbg classes shouldn't really use alpha transparency, as the class is used in so many different places. Maybe I should introduce a postbg and postbg2 or something to account for topics, and have them based automatically on windowbg...? (Warm/index.css)
@ Pete: what was the typo you mentioned in 938...?
(12 files, 12kb)
- The Settings files shouldn't have a version number in them, as they're not intended to be upgraded later. (Settings.php, Settings_bak.php)
* A few more contextual changes from Simple Machines to Wedge. (*/readme.html, ManageServer.php, ModerationCenter.php, Themes.php, Admin.language.php)
* French translation. (Admin.french.php, ManageSettings.french.php)
! Warm's windowbg classes shouldn't really use alpha transparency, as the class is used in so many different places. Maybe I should introduce a postbg and postbg2 or something to account for topics, and have them based automatically on windowbg...? (Warm/index.css)
@ Pete: what was the typo you mentioned in 938...?
8084
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 17th, 2011, 03:11 PM »
Yes, we can postpone $txt to later -- but remember how we postponed changing SMF stuff to Wedge for later...? I'm doing it now because I fear I will forget later, and I'd rather have done it before... :PQuote from Arantor on August 17th, 2011, 02:42 PM We are giving things back.
- Several years of work for the SMF community from the both of us. We gave that without getting anything in return. I think at least half of the SMF team agrees that it's only fair to consider we don't owe SMF anything -- and it's the other way around.
- The changelog. It might seem like nothing, but as I said multiple times, it documents the entire list of SMF bugs that we fixed. It's up to the SMF team to process the changelog, analyze what they need changing, and do it themselves. I made over 400 bug reports at Mantis, including many *after* I was post-banned from SMF. I didn't suddenly stop spotting and fixing bugs in SMF... The only difference, now, is that I can't submit them directly to SMF because they removed my beta tester account. And even then, I'm still making the changelog public and thus the list of SMF bugs is now accessible.
- The ideas. We published our feature list months ago, and we're now discussing publicly as much as we can of our current ideas and implementations (just look at this very topic, since we're totally OT here.) Ideas can't be copyrighted. SMF can steal those ideas, we can't do anything about it -- except to take note that they considered our ideas to be good enough to steal them... We own our implementations of these ideas. But they may not even be the *best* implementations of it. (Although, TBH, I don't think the current SMF developer team is up to the task to make better implementations... :whistle:)
So, yeah, I'm sorry but at this point, I can see a lot of things we're giving back to the SMF community.
If all the SMF team wants is *for us to share our code*, then they should have asked us to become the SMF developer team a year ago. Instead, they showed us the way out, indicating they didn't feel the need for our ideas and work.
It's as simple as that... It would be quite preposterous from the SMF team to expect anything more than what we're currently giving them.Quote Couldn't agree more.
I'm not disputing that it's not exactly pleasant for us to be taking from SMF without giving something back,
- Several years of work for the SMF community from the both of us. We gave that without getting anything in return. I think at least half of the SMF team agrees that it's only fair to consider we don't owe SMF anything -- and it's the other way around.
- The changelog. It might seem like nothing, but as I said multiple times, it documents the entire list of SMF bugs that we fixed. It's up to the SMF team to process the changelog, analyze what they need changing, and do it themselves. I made over 400 bug reports at Mantis, including many *after* I was post-banned from SMF. I didn't suddenly stop spotting and fixing bugs in SMF... The only difference, now, is that I can't submit them directly to SMF because they removed my beta tester account. And even then, I'm still making the changelog public and thus the list of SMF bugs is now accessible.
- The ideas. We published our feature list months ago, and we're now discussing publicly as much as we can of our current ideas and implementations (just look at this very topic, since we're totally OT here.) Ideas can't be copyrighted. SMF can steal those ideas, we can't do anything about it -- except to take note that they considered our ideas to be good enough to steal them... We own our implementations of these ideas. But they may not even be the *best* implementations of it. (Although, TBH, I don't think the current SMF developer team is up to the task to make better implementations... :whistle:)
So, yeah, I'm sorry but at this point, I can see a lot of things we're giving back to the SMF community.
If all the SMF team wants is *for us to share our code*, then they should have asked us to become the SMF developer team a year ago. Instead, they showed us the way out, indicating they didn't feel the need for our ideas and work.
It's as simple as that... It would be quite preposterous from the SMF team to expect anything more than what we're currently giving them.
but I feel firmly that I gave a lot more to SMF than I've got back from them so far...
8085
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 17th, 2011, 01:34 PM »I missed a few but by and large I do remove them as I go,
I try to make sure I check at least. Some of the strings you've pulled out lately aren't properly used in SMF either...
Bad idea. Quite a few strings are identified programmatically, never directly,