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

Well, XOOPS has some problems, but if your choice as user is Mambo - okay. "Welcome to Mambo-Hell"
Regarding Russian Roulette - leve this game to russians and use Modules Proving Ground. I'll install any XOOPS2-compatible module and give admin's rights to module anybody... But almost nobody wantы to play with my revolver and bullets

Quote:

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

well that's to the point.

here's my opinion tho.

a.
Quote:

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

Quote:

wf-team is nothin to do with XOOPS core team, it would be wrong of the core team to take on fixing those modules, besides the extra time they would have to give to doing that which would mean less time spent on developing the core. 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.

i suspect after many discussions and *users* requests in the past for module packs that people will still complain..
xoops will not come with modules in the next versions (this was also after many requests from users over the years) module packs will be made, great but i then suspect even though those packs are made, some people will still complain and say that module oughta be in that pack, and can u swap that module for this module etc etc..

i suspect what you think is a good gallery module, that others may not think it's the best. so here's the record goin round in circles again.

b.
Quote:

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

i've suggested stricter forum moderation for 1.. start to moderate posts & topics more efficiently and stricter. what i mean is enforce the 'off-topic' posting rules that many other sites use.. if your post is off-topic, either it be deleted, or moved to a more relevant topic..

hijacking of threads oughta be moderated.. ie.. if we take the coppermine forums rules and moderation.. they are strict on there.. 1 topic, 1 question, any other questions in that topic should be specific to the topic itself.. if someone is discussing how to change the author name of say the news module' then that should be all that topic is about.. if someone posts in that topic asking how to do something else, they should be told to start a new thread and not hijack the thread as to speak.. this would improve searching and make for better forum organization.. but by saying that, i can see many would argue this point a lot too.


c.

Quote:

QA team is in the making and i think have started to address this. but that still takes time and people to do that, is the XOOPS team responsible for downloading submissions, then installing them on their sites to test if they work or not? blimey i think not.. complain to the module authors for that and not XOOPS team.. and btw, there are plenty of mods on mambo that don't work, or are buggy..

d.
Quote:

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. the less 3rd party coding and features in the core the better, as the core team don't then have to worry about fixing bugs with other peoples code.

whilst i see your points, i can see theirs, and mine and everyone elses.. and they are all 'opinions' you may not like 1 thing, but other people do etc does that make the XOOPS team bad? or does that make you bad? or me bad? you can see where this is going?

i could give you a list of why i don't like mambo but i won't because that's my opinion, many would disagree and many would agree

I just played around with mambo, its ok, they use "components" instead of modules and "modules" are actually blocks.

Group management is horrible, otherwise its very similar to xoops.

Although the install of components and modules is wonderful, you just browse tour comp for the zip file and click upload and install in one step and viola its done!

No ftp needed!

But still mambo is not a good choice for me, their components are scattered and not very well documented, and group management and access is horrible.

my 2 cents

i totaly agree with m0nty!his right on everything and i think he said all the things that have to be sayed..hmm or did i miss something?

snore...
another useless thread that won't acomplish anything but will go on for 20 pages while user questions go unanswered.

So no, I have nothing constructive to add but I'll add nothing anyway.

blah blah blah.

Welcome to (insert new love here) and bye bye to xoops. Thanks for stopping by.

Show me the code and I'll be more impressed.

> 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:

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...

Quote:

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

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

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, which is why i said that is more to take up with the wf-team than with XOOPS team if they want to give their permission for that and *work* together with the XOOPS team then that's an ideal situation for all..

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. 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. 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