> yes people will always complain.. you can't please everybody.

Agreed.

> i don't advocate burying my head in the sand, i was just mentioning the fact that those modules are the wf-teams work.

So if a module is abandoned (lets be honest the wf-project is mostly dead at this point development wise) its still off limits? IMO thats a wasted resource. Why re-invent the wheel when a mostly working module is ready for the taking to be used as part of the new module packs?

> i have seen this argument before in threads where 1 developer took someone elses module, modified it a lot and released it, it caused an argument between them and lots of references to gnu etc.. i'm not going to elaborate on who said what and who did what etc because that's finished now..

Let them yell. Perhaps next time they will, using the wf-project as a example, do a better job releasing patches/updates. You need to break some eggs to make a omlette is my stance.

On a side note whos to say you have to keep the name the same, you could use wf-sections as the base for the new module and just rename it. I point to what phppp did with newbb2/CBB. This way anyone still claiming to be on the wf-projects team still retains 'their' module but the core team develops a fork as the new core.

> i don't think the wf-team would take too kindly to their modules being taken over by xoops, especially as they are still working on them,

Thats a very debatable point. I put the WF modules inching very closely to abandonware if not already there.

> i didn't mean to throw negativity to your reasons for pondering with mambo, just offered a response to them, 1 which was pretty valid tho.

Fair enough.

> the QA team is going to be doing exactly what you said anyway regarding modules, this was discussed many weeks ago on here and in public view, and they are addressing it gradually.

I am glad to hear this. I wish them well.

> but it can't be done overnight.. i was just trying to make you aware of the QA team existence etc, so you know that those *bad* points you mention are being addressed

Some of them at least ;) but I do agree its a start. Thank you for a well spoken reply.

I also want to thank everyone else who has put in productive input into this thread. I am glad to see such excellent posts.

Quote:

And the dev team wonders why some of the community hold them in poor regard. With arrogant, rude posts like this from them, I wonder...

> when i installed mambo, i couldn't find any modules as default :S

First of all no need to get all defensive. I am just looking at other options. Last I knew that was allowed. I have decided mambo isnt my cup of tea I am now looking at TikiWiki. I like the fact all the functions are built in. No need to go hunting and trying 6 different modules for the same function. Quite convient. But none the less thats not here nor there.

> i still had to search for them, and finding them took longer than searching on xoops, some of the ones i did find that i would use, Did not work with the version of mambo i had installed and needed a previous version of mambo. it was also a nightmare to setup and maintain compared to xoops.

I wanst trying to imply mambo was better or worse vs XOOPS on this level or that. Simply I was evaluating it.

> wf-team is nothin to do with XOOPS core team, it would be wrong of the core team to take on fixing those modules,

why? Whats stopping them from taking the module, fixing it and making it the new articles core? Is that such a horrible idea?

> besides the extra time they would have to give to doing that which would mean less time spent on developing the core.

So you put all your zots in the core and say to hell with the default modules? Not good project management or long term planning IMO. I goes back to the point, the default modlules should be fully functional and robust. Not bottom of the barrel functionality/feature set.

> what you consider the best, might not be someones elses best. that's something you oughta take up with them and not throw at XOOPS core team.

So then whats your alternative? With your logic nothing will ever get done because someone, somewhere will complain. Seems you advocate the strategy to just stick your head in the sand until the issues goes away. I am of the mindset its better to be proactive then reactive.

> i suspect after many discussions and *users* requests in the past for module packs that people will still complain..

Let them. Someones ALWAYS going to complain, but that shouldnt stop a entire project from bettering itself.

> that's time consuming, who is going to do it?

I dont manage the team, so I dont know. I am at least offering suggestions more then the negativty you seem to like to toss around.

With that said, if I was managing the XOOPS team I would put togeather a community manager with 2 or 3 assistants. And their entire job would be to test and evaluate modules to weed out the good from the bad. On top of collecting forum ideas.

> because the default editor is 'safer' for the webmaster, it's faster for the user and the webmaster might not want a full html/wysiwyg on his site, having it optional is the best method in my opinion, i only install it on sites i've done if the client actually requests it, otherwise the default editor works great.

Fine, but make it a option thats built in, part of the core is my point. I am not suggesting removing the basic editor.

My 2 coppers

Quote:

If you have nothing constructive/substantive to add then please refrain from littering this thread with spam.

While I only read about 2/3 of a 18 page thread I think I have a pretty good grasp of both sides. I think some points are well made on both sides. But I also think there are issues and I do not see either said as having any 'moral high ground' per se.

With that said, while I know I am not the most popular guy due to my out spokeness, here are my main issue with XOOPS and why I am pondering converting to Mambo.

a. The default modules are crap. They only have the most basic functionality and only suffice on the most lean sites. How many people use nothing but the default modules on a new XOOPS install? Not many at all would be my guess. They not only do not show off XOOPS very well but cause another level of complexity for a admin when setting up a site by having to hunt down and installing some reasonablly functional modules.

How I would correct it: Pull the best forum, gallery, news, site stats, etc module from the community and use them as the new default modules. (or as was said the new versions of XOOPS will have 'module packs', but either way you get the drift).

If this entails 'taking over' certain modules by the core team so be it. I use the last full release of wf-sections as a prime example. It has some serious issues that after about a year still have yet to be addressed by the supposedly existant wf-team. Its a great module but development is about stopped or at best at a snails pace. If the core team would take it over, patch/update and release it as a core module it would be a excellent benefit to both new and current users. The same can be said with Newbb2 or the like.

There are many modules that should be used in the core rather then whats used currently IMO.

b. Int he previous thead a comment was made and perhaps I overlooked a answer, but didnt see such. In a nutshell it inquired what is happening to all the ideas and suggestions that are posted on the forum. It seems they are just getting lost in the shuffle/red tape of the project. I tend to agree, as I seem to get that same impression.

How I would correct it: There should be a community manager that scans the forums daily, copy pastes good ideas/suggestions, filters/orginizes them and then submits them to the core team for consideration in upcoming versions.

c. Module standardization. I have more then once installed a module to find its buggy or has other such issues, or so early in development it shouldnt have been posted in the first place.

How I would correct it: Some level of QA on all modules posted on this site SHOULD take place. Posting a module on this site should be a sign it works as advertised. This site shouldnt be a dumping ground for anything and everything. Mixing the good with the bad and having to play russian roulette when d/ling a module. Any poorly working module should be deleted from this site.

d. Why is the built in editor still this basic text editor? Why has Koivi (or something similar) not been made the standard default? I not not sure the logic in keeping the default XOOPS as low tech as possible but it makes for a poor first impression.

None the less those are my suggestions to improve Xoops.

I have refrained/not commented on what I think needs to be done to correct the red tape itself with the team/orginization as I feel they wouldnt be very popular and certain egos would feel threatend. Thus I felt it best to stick with the technical side for this post.

My 2 coppers

I tried to upgrade to CBB from NewBB2 and I have 2 issues.

a. Under the module config the pull down menu is blank under image type. Under NewBB2 the only choice is 'default' but under CBB there is no choice at all and needless to say a few images that existed in NewBB2 (like the RPG posting stat bars) no longer are present.

b. Perhaps a related issue, I pluged in the code in the readme.txt into my default theme .css file. Yet after I clear the cache and update the module when I select the floating/hover menu option there is just text, no borders/background.

Any help appreciated

Quote:

Ahh yes so you did as well. My bad. :)

But in a nutshell, ill post the system I put togeather from my ideas and feedback here to open up the discussion.

phppp -

Before the newbb2 meltdown I was put in charge of designing the karma system by predator.

I'd be happy to pass on the system, post here the ideas I collected, developed from working on it.

Let me know.

Does CBB carry over the RPG-ish posting stats from Newbb2?

Quote:

Agenda-X is a buggy peice of dung. I dropped it months ago and couldnt be happier.

Use PiCal its updated much more often and overall a better product.