#292501

Re: Attention Xoops RC3.0.4/3.0.5 Users

2002/10/30 9:15 Quote:

I get that! And I thought I was doing something stupid.

#292502

Re: Attention Xoops RC3.0.4/3.0.5 Users

2002/10/30 8:20 I work with Linux, so, no chance (!) to use IE, I might finally turn that feature of Mozilla off, but I guess a check from XOOPS would be more secure and not very costly.

Regards

#292503

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/30 1:08 I wouldn't expect XOOPS to be as mainstream as the Nuke flavors until XOOPS hits the final 1.0.

The nukes have been around longer and have had more time to build up a user base.

I am confident users will come with time and more development.

#292504

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/29 22:19 Harkov Thnx for you words!!

We like mantain a LOW profile for now.

You can see ton of changes into each rc and we don't like lost energy now with newbies users.!!

we not need promotions!! prefer work with calm and step by step and without pressures.

The XOOPS users know that Each RC is a revolution into the codes.

Me phrasse ever is "TAKE with calm "

#292505

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/29 19:33 In fact I often go on postnuke mainsite because there I download module to adapt

But maybe postnuke users don't know how to adapt XOOPS modules ^-^

#292506

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/29 19:03 Quote:

what do you think the 'standard' for this is? i've been looking at...curious about...wanting to setup...or write..or port...a webmail system that would be integrated into xoops, so i can just goto my site and when i log in, it'll tell me if i have new messages as well as allow me to view them.

the question is, what do other people want? is something on the level of say yahoo/hotmail needed? or is the integration of something like squirrelmail/etc good enough? when i say integration, i mean having a config where you'd setup your imap/pop server/servers. not having to log in after you've clicked on a link. and possibly importing that mail into the XOOPS pm folder...which then leads to folder support/filters/etc...

i'd like to work on this, but it depends on how 'integrated' you mean. something that directly interacts with the pm folder, would require 'core' changes. something that is simply an 'internet messaging' block, with typical webmail tools, could be done as a module.

anyway, this is getting off topic from the original post

i think XOOPS is a wonderful tool, and as a developer, i think it's extremely easy to work with...rather than all this extra functionality built into the 'core'...i think XOOPS simply needs a few more quality modules to support this functionality, like webmail, contacts, tasks, journal, newsletter...not just wrapped up ports of other existing php apps that are not integrated with xoops.

#292507

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/29 17:58 Dadabik is really a cool application, and the XOOPS sections module that we will include in the final version has a similar concept where you can define custom fields, or even create a new section for example yellowpages section, DVD database section, books section etc.

#292508

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/29 17:44 I too have been using XOOPS for about a year now and love it. Some weeks ago i decided to give phpnuke and postnuke a test drive, for the same reason that these apps have a huge following. phpnuke v6.0 is attractive, with a lot of bells and whistles and postnuke also has quite a lot of modules going for it.

But i found that the 'core' that the XOOPS team keep talkng about just ain't there with phpnuke ( you have to build an authorization / permission system using nsn module add-ons and with postnuke there's a really primitive coding style permission system which does the work but it just doesn't compare with the XOOPS authorization system / groups permissions. And without a doubt, XOOPS is more bug-free than the other two )

So the good news is that the XOOPS team is absolutely right in focusing on the core without worrying too much about the 'toys'.

But I feel that with phpnuke 6.5 / 7.0 in the near future, and with similar developments in postnuke, XOOPS die-hards may come under pressure. You cannot ignore what end users want - I disagree with your comment that the hundreds of users you see at phpnuke / postnuke are not the 'quality' clientele you want - you don't decide quality - the users / markets do.

You must consider having a proper integrated webmail system for multiple POPs - there has to be a more sophisticated built-in ( 'core' ) WYSIWYG editor / HTML module, a Newsletter, some basic Outlook functionality such as Tasks / Journal and finally, very importantly, a do-it-yourself module to setup customized fields aka DaDaBik. Sure, we can find this external module and that but then it isn't the 'core'...

#292509

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/29 15:58 I am using XOOPS for about two months now, i have tried phpnuke and postnuke before but i was never really satisfied with the result.

The greatest thing about XOOPS in my opinion is how easy it is to add content and to configure your site. I have been working on a site now for about a month. i will open the site soon, it is XOOPS powered and I made my own theme for it.

The site will be about a Belgian soccerplayer ( Koen Daerden ).
People from Belgium must have heard from him, he plays for KRC Genk and they are playing in the Champions League now and they were Belgian Champions last year.

Anyway, it will be the official site with exclusive interviews, thoughts about matches, links and off course, all this is build around a community. that's where XOOPS comes in ;)

I am satisfied with the results, couldn't have done it without xoops. many thanks to the developers and to everyone who has helped me out on the forum here, and special thanks to paul to help me out with the theme.

stay tuned for the link, someday in the next week or two

#292510

Re: xoops vs phpnuke/postnuke/etc

2002/10/29 15:25 We really appreciate the kind words. As to why more people aren't using XOOPS? Hmmm... I kinda like the amount of people we have now versus 100's of people logged on. The reason I say this is because, like yourself, I think that generally we have more quality users than quantity.

I would rather have that ration any day! The users we have are on par, much more helpful and considerate and more diverse internationally. So, that's about the best explination I have and we STILL have the same people on the core team that we had almost two years which is proving to serve us well.

Just my 2c
Eric