Quote:
Hmmm... come to think of it, charpres was probably describing the much deprecated Sections module included in the 'core modules' in the XOOPS download packages. This is entirely different from WF-Sections--and problably the cause of the confusion.

Much deprecated!! It's still there and almost certainly the root cause of this little contretemps. In my experience, a deprecated bit of code usually comes with a health warning somewhere in the release or install docs e.g. "It's here but don't use it because etc etc etc"

How about we all refer to it as SonOfSatinSection from now on?

Regards
Ashley

supernix..

I shouldn't rise to this, its Sat night and I am in a chatty mood..keeps me off the streets.

I added more lines of code to wfsections. My new version has another exciting form which users type commands into, i.e.

"make me a coffee and a salad sandwich".

So, I am happy to announce the amazing new release of "DinerZFsections. Oh, can you help me Catswolf, there is a bug when it trys to make haggis--the error messages after debug are:

"Hey Jimmy, get a grip, I could-ney write to the following folders:

1 cleaned Sheep or Lamb's Stomach Bag
900g (2lb). dry Oatmeal
600ml (1 pint) Stock
450g (1lb) chopped Mutton Suet
450g (1lb) Lamb's or Deer's Liver
Heart and Lights of the Sheep
1 large Onion
½ tsp Cayenne Pepper
Salt And Pepper "

Bad illustration coming which I am sure anyone who wants to can pick holes in.

Lets say you are an artist who spent a long time creating your art, and then you sign your art with your name i.e. "supermix" Later, somone else comes along, takes your work of art, adds some extra brushstrokes to improve its appearance, and then decides to call it by his own name i.e "superjim"

In the open source world if an individual sorts out a bug in an existing programme, then terrific, that is what it is all about. But if you take an existing programe, and call it by another name and then release it, then that is a fork of your work--always has been in open source.

Developers naturally support there own work because they know the coding inside out. Catswolf does not know the coding they have altered for one thing, and he is being honest about the fact he wont support it--this saves him getting bogged down with posts about XFsections. He has found the time to work on his new version, so pretty please, lets encourage him..

The XF Author never did anything like your trying to claim.

And anyone that says he did is definately a liar. The guy took a buggy code and built onto it and made it unique in ways and better. The author of the base code that was used for a shell to build from can't stand the idea that someone built a better system from his base code and has shown a nasty attitude towards someone that has done a great thing. So if were going to do anything or say anything at all. Then what should be done is encourage the WF person to have a better more productive attitude.

It is rediculous that you would dare to make the statement that the XF author just did a name change. What a joke and a half.

It is a pitiful person that can't give credit where credit is due.

Catzwolf was on a good path of developing a great program but was detained from fixing what he had started and there was enough interested parties to encourage the XF author to work on creating a somewhat similar module. And the XF author does not fail to give credit where credit is due. He most certainly makes it know the module originally came from WF-Section.

I personally waited for a very long time for Catwolf to finish his WF-Sections module. I waited for a long time in great anticipation because it looked great. But 1.01 was released and there was a notice that it had a security problem. So definately not useful for a production site.

There is still plenty of joy and glory about being the person that gave birth to WF-Sections and XF-Sections.
You will still see the name Catzwolf in the XF-Sections code.

It is that concept of taking an idea and making it better that has given us many of the things we use today and helped to improve some things that already exist.

Creating something better based on someone elses work or idea does not detract from the original party and does not detract from the person that makes a work better. Each person has their work to speak for them equally.

Quote:

Mmm... I think you put your finger on the problem. It's a combination of trying to run 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 on two servers while going back and forth and trying to remember what modules were originally called when I have renamed some modules so they make sense to users. For example, sections in one of my sites was renamed to "Articles" so people would know what they're clicking on.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a flame fest.

Let's just take it as my original post should have "Sections" not "WFSections" and that although there is a world of difference between Sections and WF-Sections, there may not be significant difference between WF and XF or Patriots or Panthers, whatever. At this point I have spent 3 hours today trying to get XF to work with XOOPS search. So, I think someone could probably spend a month trying to do an accurate comparison of these modules. Let's just say that my attempt is way less than accurate.

Hello all!

I'm the lucky guinea pig that has the newest version of WF-sections on her site. I've been reading through the posts here and am rather surprised, although I shouldn't be.
Supernix, if you like XF-sections better, then by all means use it but for the love of Christ cut it out!!
You like XF-sections better..we get it. We're pretty swift in here, contrary to what you may have been told. What are you married to tha guy? His sworn publicist for life? Geesh! Again, simple principle. You don't like it...don't use it. Catz is not obligated to support it. That would be like Bill Gates trying to provide tech support to Lindows, or Linux. Bah! I hate arguements over stupid s***. Now lets talk game graphics, there's something to argue about.
I am very happy with the WF-Sections and Catz I'll be your guinea pig any time. ;)

@supernix:

You have been very blunt with your criticism towards me and my so called attitude towards this topic, so forgive me if I do the same here.

You of all people should know me by now, well I thought you did but hey we can all be wrong sometimes.

I have made no bones about the fact that I will not support this version of XF-Sections now or at any other stage of its development and this is nothing to do with what you have insinuated. I have never seen, touched or even looked at XF-Sections code wise and I have only gone by what I have read on this website. Also, I have no intention in doing so either.

The reason I have stated that I will not support XF-Section has nothing to do with the fact that I am jealous or feel that the author has done a better job etc etc etc. What you don't know is the fact that I do not have the time to support software that is not mines. I have enough emails, forum posts and PM's on my own modules without having to deal with other modules.

Now lets get a few things straight here, there is a difference in taking non active open source and updating it to a project that is still under development, I have stated all along that WF-Sections was still under development and was no means a dead project.

From what I have read, the author only intended this to be a one off and yes I do believe it only right to ask for permission to take over the development of a project even on an open source project. I did this with the original author of WF-Sections myself.

It’s kind of like me taking DMS, liaise or someone else's module, fixing a few bugs then releasing it under a different'ish' name. I am sure the authors of them modules may not be too happy about it either.

I have always stated if you find bugs or want updates to WF-Sections then send them to me and they will be included. Ah yes, why has WF-Sections taken so long I hear you say? WF is not the only module that I am working on at the moment (8 at the last count), I have been working on other modules needed for XOOPS and trying to get the module development team going. So time has been short to say the least. Plus my ill health at times kind of puts everything to a sudden stop.

You also mentioned why I never teamed up with the author? An invitation was sent to him regarding joining the development team, but for some reason I never heard back from him except for once and it never happened.

You seem to think that I am pissed off about this whole affair; you couldn't be further from the truth here. If you had noticed I already said that I did not hold any bad feelings over this.

My intention in this topic was to merely correct an inaccuracy and nothing more. This is not sour grapes I can assure you and anyone who knows me here will know that.


EDIT: I have never stated that WF-Sections version 1.0.1 was a security risk (Well not that I remember) I did however state that the filemanager was buggy as hell and could coz problems on a production website.

Quote:
Ah, would you try to contact him again? I'm sure he didn't ignored your e-mail on purpose. I'll also ask him about it in "Japanese".( Please also take it into considereation that English is the foe for Japanese.) If you don't have enough time for Wf-section, utilize the author of Xf-section. lol He also integrated WikiName into Xf-section, and this feature is worth considering for Wf-section, isn't it?

Okay, I have a present for you, catz. I hope you don't know it...

Shinzo Abe, the Japanese famous governor's web site uses Wf-section.
http://www.s-abe.or.jp/profile_in_english.html
http://www2.s-abe.or.jp/index.php

Jealous? Come on...

The best answer for the "best for article management" question could be: each of about 10 article management modules made for XOOPS have some unique or "the best" features, features that other modules are not focused on.
And, it's real quality of xoops.

At Windsormall com I use 7-8 different article management modules for 8 different web site tasks. I do it in order to achieve easier database management and because of the fact that each web site sections asked for different content presentation and different design and layout. If you like you can check how each of them work:

Here we go:

XOOPS NEWS (core) - mother of all XOOPS articles management modules. You know about it: the most stable, interactive and usable. Classic use - a part of the site that community writers use most.

Classic News/articles Page

WF SECTION - the best for magazine type of content, allows
quick layout and design change. I use it for "Save Online" articles mainly prepared by admins.

Earn and Save Online page

FREE CONTENT 3 - If you have any content and design tasks that you would like to prepare and design out of XOOPS ( design page using Dreamweaver for instance and after import it into XOOPS theme or integrate existing static web site into XOOPS)Free Content is a tool for it. Plus powerful Web Digest inside. Together with ENTEPRISEX module Free content is a good tool for mini web site business presentations.

Business Presentation using Free Content

Web Digest, new and powerful module by wjue - I used it as a News Scout - Have to do: Layout and design

WF CHANNEL - Ten minutes of work and you have three very important pages, attractive and ready to use. Thanks for this realy good present.

LINK TO US

CJAY CONTENT - stable (my experience) and very flexible, you can use it almost for any task you want. I would say: news plus custom design possibilities.

Travel content - Coming to Windsor? Great! - need to complete this part of the site

TINY CONTENT - I built Amazon store section using this module. Easy to use, can do more than I asked.
STORE

IContent - Excellent module, I would say - something between directory module and article management module. I need it for Shopping Guide (listings and articles together - coming soon)

Come and try.

home page link (blocks and business directory module): windsormall.com

I likewise am in a chatty mood.....

I agree that anyone who spend so much time coding open-source code would be very proud of it. I also think that they will and should not support a fork of their work, especially if it is not a real diversion from the orig.

However, many people who are interested in open-source software are not interested in giving back. They want to gloss over the work of others, and claim it as their own.

I understand, and have been involved with, both points of view. One is about community involvement. The other is about selfishness (often called profitability).

A prime example is my use of the LEAF project. I found this project that was exactly what I needed to make a GREAT solid state firewall. I contributed what I could to doc and code (not much was needed) and even donated some cash. Then I repackaged the code, integrated it into a tight little hardware setup, and sell it for $$$. I both contribute to and take from this project. All licenses and credits are left in place, but I sure don't point those I sell this to to the homepage of this project.

The XOOPS coders seem a little defensive about their work, and rightfully so. But none of their possesiveness can stop someone from repackaging or extending their work: IBM HTTP Server (Repackaged Apache w/ SSL), e-Groupware (Repackaged PHP-Groupware), and many many more.

I really have no point to this rant, I was just feeling a little chatty.

Anyways, THANK YOU DEVELOPERS!!!!! You do so much hard work. And I appreciate it very much.

Jason