First time I ever heard of it.

On the other hand, wouldn't you better be asking for that info at their site?

No matter what script you use, running a dynamic site with any kind of volume will usually piss off admins of shared hosting companies. The most important thing to do for high volume sites is to use some kind of php accellerator, no matter if its commercial or free. I have no idea why shared hosting companies don't at least use a free solution to reduce server load. Search me.

If you are running any kind of high volume, you're best advised to get your own server. One reason the shared admins are PO'd is because most of them run the DB server on a different machine than the Apache, so there's a lot of network traffic between the two. If you have a dedicated server, you usually run both on the same machine, so the DB connection is faster than in a shared environment and doesn't eat bandwidth.

Here (germany) one of the best hosts for dedicated (root-access) servers is hetzner.de, where you pay 39 EUR (around 48$) for an Athon XP 3000, 1GB RAM, 160GB HDD, and 160GB of traffic. I guess you could find hosts for similar prices elsewhere, and if you don't, hetzner can take international domains too

like i said, the most important thing is running a byte-cache. I use zend accellerator on 30 servers to run a website with over 60 million visitors per day, and benchmarks have shown that I'd need about three times as many without the accellerator.

Both of the other answers are basically right. There is however a method for embedding fonts in a web-page that will work for 3/4 of the surfing public, namely the ones using Micro$oft's Internet Explorer. IE provides for embedded fonts in CSS. The format is something like this:

@font-face { font-family:Chianti XBd BT;
src:url(http://www.meine.com/fonts/chianti.eot); }

Where the ".eot" file can be generated from a TrueType font using Bill's "WEFT" tool (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/web/embedding/weft3/default.htm)

Works quite well for keeping with the company CI (makes the marketing department happy) while degrading gracefully for non-IE-users.

Short answer: Because it's standards compliant. XHTML 1.0 strict requires that tables only be used to display tabular data (lists etc.).

The reduction of page size is another nice aspect, but I think the biggest advantage is the separation of content from design. Using divs/spans for markup allows a theme developer to create a theme without touching the xhtml. If taken all the way, this can totally eliminate the use of a "template engine" such as Smarty.

On the GNU.org website you can find a nice FAQ that answeres nearly all question regarding the GPL. (BTW: PHP is not under the GPL, but under a much less restrictive license, the PHP license)

Quote:

The XOOPS Core is a library of classes/functions, released under the GPL.

Quote:

This would cover the running of proprietary software on PHP, if PHP where GPL'd.

Quote:

Really says it all, does it?

Quote:

You started being anal, so you had it coming:

A semicolon looks like ";"

":" is called a colon (but this is beyond anal, pun intended)

Quote:
These kind of info (and a lot more) you can get with IBMs PageDetailer tool, which you can get here free:

http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/pagedetailer

(Make sure to kill the process after you're done )

Xoops is becoming a more and more professional product. It follows that more and more people will use it in a professional way. It also means that the contributors will be more likely to be professionals who (try to) make a living from developing software.

When you contribute to an open-source project, you do that in your spare time, so you do what you like best. You work on your newest, hippest theme, or a clan-roster for your CS team. When you work on something someone else requested, you're giving up your spare time for that. In a market based economy it is common to sell one's spare time for money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact the other attitude (Xoops and Money don't mix) scares me.

If it is possible and common to make money with Xoops, this will draw professional programmers, who will most likely make quality contributions to the project, even if the modules/themes they develop for money are closed source. (At the moment we're not really sure if our license requires all modules to be GPL'ed too, but if the module is never released to the public that is of no consequence.)

Thus we can only win by encouraging people to earn money - even make a living - from Xoops. Hey, I'm positively thrilled by the thought of professionals working full time on and with Xoops.

I also do XOOPS programming for money. It enables me to spend some of my work time on the CMS I like best. Of course I could say: "No, I use Mambo or Typo3 for work, and XOOPS only as a hobby." What would that say about my opinion of Xoops? If I thought any other project had higher quality and was more usable, I would be contributing to that project, not to Xoops. So it's only natural that I want to use XOOPS to make a living, because it is the best system.

One thing that has worked well for me (and I encourage other professionals to do the same) is that I offer my clients a discount if they are willing to release the work I do for them to the XOOPS community.

Another thing I would like to suggest: If you make money with Xoops, and you can't contribute any code to the project because of the nature of the project or the will of the client, please consider donating a little to the project. I know that using XOOPS for commercial work enables you to make much lower bids than competitors who build sites from scratch or use commercial CMSs. Whenever XOOPS makes me win a pitch or finish the job in half the time, I donate 5-10% of the fee.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?

The main reason would be to have easy, intuitive URLs.

The easiest way to get those with the current version of XOOPS is to use Apache's mod_rewrite to rewire www.example.com/forum to point at www.example.com/modules/forum. If you search this forum for mod_rewrite you should find some info about that.

We're looking into the subject of "friendly" URLs for a future version of Xoops, but don't hold your breath as it might be a while.

Similar here, although number of reads etc. are easy enough to remove from the templates. What put some of my potential clients of XOOPS was the message icons, smilies, non-intuitive bb-code formatting etc.

To turn these off, you have to hack deep into Xoops, which is risky if you want to be able to upgrade later, so I had to use a different CMS for those customers.