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 - verm
1
The Pub / Re: Looking for volunteers to test the Wedge private alpha!
« on October 27th, 2012, 06:19 AM »
No harm in trying...
I've been on and off SMF since early 2005...and would like to test Wedge on one live site...
I'll spend as much time needed to get the site running with Wedge smoothly...(parallel setup and switch over when everything is good)
Just one question (if it has been asked before then I'm sorry for repeating the question).
Is there any significant performance gain using Wedge versus SMF from server resource usage perspective?
I've been on and off SMF since early 2005...and would like to test Wedge on one live site...
I'll spend as much time needed to get the site running with Wedge smoothly...(parallel setup and switch over when everything is good)
Just one question (if it has been asked before then I'm sorry for repeating the question).
Is there any significant performance gain using Wedge versus SMF from server resource usage perspective?
2
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 18th, 2011, 07:27 PM »
Sorry to butt in, I do not know much about open source license but I find it very weird for a BSD licensed software to impose restriction such as not allowing linking to a non-BSD licensed fork....
I thought by going BSD, it does not matter if the forks are BSD or non-BSD (because BSD license allowed such thing)...
So if Wedge chooses not to go BSD at the moment, it does not hurt if it is being discussed or mentioned at the original board...in fact they should be proud of it (that the software is being forked by many)...
Just my 2 and 1/2 cents...
I thought by going BSD, it does not matter if the forks are BSD or non-BSD (because BSD license allowed such thing)...
So if Wedge chooses not to go BSD at the moment, it does not hurt if it is being discussed or mentioned at the original board...in fact they should be proud of it (that the software is being forked by many)...
Just my 2 and 1/2 cents...
3
Off-topic / Re: Unknown's thoughts on Wedge
« on June 30th, 2011, 02:36 PM »link=msg=263307 date=1309420832]
Presumably, not a ton of code has changed between SMF 2.0 RC5 and SMF 2.0, right? So in theory, this sounds right. I'm not sure what it means to check the compatibility; from context, I assume this is some manual process?
Let me ask you this. The mods you have installed now, did you have to make any manual edits to install them all successfully? I don't know if you have a bunch or if you use themes, but if the answer to either of those is yes, I presume you had to do manual edits, and you're wanting to avoid making those again, right?
I assume there is an update package for SMF 2.0 RC5. I'm guessing it does not apply cleanly on top of your existing mods, right?
-[Unknown]
Yes, some of the mods I installed involved manual edits (made for RC4 and install in RC5) and I think I modified one mod to feature 'Member for xx days'...
It is quite troublesome to remember what and where I made the edits months ago..
Since I myself not a programmer and only doing a little bit of code hack once in a blue moon, I think having mods that use hook will be lot simpler for administrators like me to maintain their forum...but I still like the challenge of making direct edits..
I applied the update but in a test environment (cloned the site) and I think I need a clear mind and lots of coffee before I proceed... :lol:
4
Off-topic / Re: Unknown's thoughts on Wedge
« on June 29th, 2011, 07:09 PM »
IMHO, minor version upgrades (or patches) for the same branch, i.e. ver 1, the mods should be independant of the minor changes to the codebase...
Even with major upgrades going from one branch to the next, using hooks should allow mods to be compatible (or backward compatible) unless the codebase is refactored...
But a hook is still a hook, even the codebase is totally changed then the changes to the function/class doing the hooking should be backward compatible...
I am talking nonsense is it not...
Anyway, to simplify my point, one site I administer is using SMF 2 RC5 will plenty of mods...now with SMF 2 Final, I am reluctant to upgrade since it will involved the same amount of work during the initial installation; that is checking if the mod is compatible with the version and re-install...
it would be better to simply upgrade the forum software only without all the hassle of checking the compatibility of the mods since to me it come from the same branch
Even with major upgrades going from one branch to the next, using hooks should allow mods to be compatible (or backward compatible) unless the codebase is refactored...
But a hook is still a hook, even the codebase is totally changed then the changes to the function/class doing the hooking should be backward compatible...
I am talking nonsense is it not...
Anyway, to simplify my point, one site I administer is using SMF 2 RC5 will plenty of mods...now with SMF 2 Final, I am reluctant to upgrade since it will involved the same amount of work during the initial installation; that is checking if the mod is compatible with the version and re-install...
it would be better to simply upgrade the forum software only without all the hassle of checking the compatibility of the mods since to me it come from the same branch
5
Off-topic / Re: Least its not cranky here...
« on April 30th, 2011, 05:47 PM »
The Texan dude is nothing but a balloon with air.....ridicoulous and as spoogs said, repulsive...
6
Off-topic / Re: Least its not cranky here...
« on April 30th, 2011, 04:33 PM »
I understand your reasons. Its time to move on mate.
Although I'm in no position (nor the experience) to criticise SMF, but I think (after not reading all the comments) SMF is not what I envisioned as a community project. IMHO the development should alway remain independent of the licensing. Granted the current licensing is not good one but I see no reason to freeze everything. If the development continued, at least we already seen SMF3.0 with new license in place...
At the end of day, I appreciate what both Nao and Arantor did to SMF and I look forward to see the upcoming Wedge (and use it) :eheh:
And yes Arantor, deleting your post serve no purpose but leaving it there shall serve as the reminder not only for you (but of course it is you) but also the rest of us who knows you and understand whats going on...
Although I'm in no position (nor the experience) to criticise SMF, but I think (after not reading all the comments) SMF is not what I envisioned as a community project. IMHO the development should alway remain independent of the licensing. Granted the current licensing is not good one but I see no reason to freeze everything. If the development continued, at least we already seen SMF3.0 with new license in place...
At the end of day, I appreciate what both Nao and Arantor did to SMF and I look forward to see the upcoming Wedge (and use it) :eheh:
And yes Arantor, deleting your post serve no purpose but leaving it there shall serve as the reminder not only for you (but of course it is you) but also the rest of us who knows you and understand whats going on...
7
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 27th, 2011, 05:24 AM »
It's not like you are removing all your posts overnite....
and above all you still response to support questions....
i'd say its a matter of fear of doing the hard real work, hoping that your work will save them from the hardship...
and above all you still response to support questions....
i'd say its a matter of fear of doing the hard real work, hoping that your work will save them from the hardship...
8
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 26th, 2011, 06:44 PM »Oh, they noticed. More on this story later.
9
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 26th, 2011, 10:55 AM »
40000 posts gone with a single enter, that would create a big shockwave throughout the forum.. :D
10
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 26th, 2011, 03:15 AM »
Basically you are doing the opposite direction instead to getting higher post count... :lol:
If really good people bid farewell to SMF, I wonder what SMF have now... :hmm:
If really good people bid farewell to SMF, I wonder what SMF have now... :hmm:
11
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 26th, 2011, 02:57 AM »
No wonder I see posts by Orstio is still there but the the account is deleted. What happened to him anyway?
12
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 25th, 2011, 03:48 PM »Oh, I don't know, I've really cut back my support lately, but it shows you something that even recently I've been at least as active as *multiple people combined* out of their support team.
(not to mention pending posts that still awaits approval frm the moderators)
Out of your current behavior other there? As far as I know, were they to ban you, they'd get a very visible community backlash.
13
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 25th, 2011, 02:48 PM »It also depends on the way you say it. If you say "SMF is a piece of shit", you'll get a nice ban. But if you say something with an actual argument, it can be taken positively (or get a nice ban).
14
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 25th, 2011, 12:21 PM »It's far less bad than many of the things others have said, hell it's far less bad than some of the stuff I've said to them, and for some reason I'm not banned yet...
15
The Pub / Re: A question......
« on April 25th, 2011, 11:39 AM »
I know I'm not much of a php programmer, but when I first use smf back 2005, it was a very impressive software, feature packed yet allow the flexibility of doing some tinkering with it. Now 6 years later when I came back to use it again, what was once the leader of the pack (IMHO) now end up not getting anywhere...coming 2.0 final, I'm for sure will be one of the 'not impressed' people...
p/s: sorry for the rant...if i do it in sm.org i'm sure i'll be banned... :lol:
p/s: sorry for the rant...if i do it in sm.org i'm sure i'll be banned... :lol: