Well this weekend I was working on test 1 of upgrading a 2.0.15 XOOPS site I have to 2.3.1. At the same time I also did a new install of 2.3.1 to use as comparison to see if something that should have happened in my upgrade did not.

After everything the upgrade site is now running although there are obviously some theme and template issues. The new install is not and I can't get to admin to turn on debug (I know how to do it in MySQL and if I have problems that will go in that forum).

Anyway the reason I write all this is that during the new install a lot of files did not transfer as indicated by checksum.php. Seems an old FileZilla bug has arisen that was supposedly fixed. So I went about fixing all those problems to try and repair the fresh install. I also noticed the huge file scope of the system now. So I did a compare. Looking at the old 2.0.15 htdocs folder I see about 600+ files with a total size of around 3 megs. I look at the same folder in 2.3.1 and I see now a file count of 3,000+ and a disk usage space near about 10 megs.

This seems just a massive increase, a 4 fold increase, that does not represent 4 fold value added to the end user. And that is without any modules or module packs added. This is a huge file/server impact for the baseline core in my opinion and I think something should be mentioned to the developers about it. It seems to me it could be slimmer. Granted that is not a programmatic analysis of the file scope, just an uneducated guess.

Also I have found that the installer although "prettier" seems a little less logical than it used to be. For one I think the DB configuration pages (2) should be merged to 1 page. There is easily the screen real estate and I think it makes things cleaner in the logic sense. Also there seems to be a lot of manual steps that would turn off the more timid users.

I think these are significant, one of the reasons I used to always choose XOOPS over Drupal were reasons that are disappearing. First of all I have found Drupal and XOOPS to be equal on the file impact I am talking about, until 2.3.1 that is. Both came just about empty allowing you to add just what you needed. The advantage XOOPS has had were the easier install and better admin for non-tech users. Also I alway felt that out of the box XOOPS had more professional looking modules, and that one heck of a site could be made with less coding knowledge.

However now at this point XOOPS has far exceeded Drupal in core size and is becoming just as complicated to install and upgrade. The file impact becomes a bigger deal when you compare Drupals multisite feature.

I am not trying to turn this into a Drupal vs XOOPS discussion. I am trying to mention that I think these areas are things XOOPS developers could look into for improving XOOPS over all. That is all.

Anyway I hope this doesn't start a flame war, I know I haven't posted in here in a while but I have been keeping up to speed as much as I can with one of my biggest sites being a XOOPS site, http://www.raleighmusic.com.

Anyway just some opinions from lowly old me!

Ken

Thank you very much for your comments.

Critising is not done because one hates, but because he loves, otherwise he wouldn't care and leave in silence.

To the file amount, I was surprised, but I must say that XOOPS comes now with partial Frameworks and three WYSIWYG editors. Maybe for the editors the install procedure could make them optional, so the administrator chooses what he needs. When he sees the amount needed for a particular editor, he can then decide wisely.
Tiny 3 MB in 1200 files
FCK 2,6 MB in 340 files
Koivi 0,3 MB in 220 files
Total 6 MB in 1700 files for 3 WYSIWYG editors.

Very valid comments indeed.
While personally not so worried by the hard disk footprint (storage is cheap these days), I very much agree with the following:
Quote:

I find that XOOPS is really pushing my coding ability close to the limits. Though I'm learning a lot of interesting stuff, there are so many assumptions as to 'obvious' hacks and code adaptations being made that I feel XOOPS is moving away from being a beginners' tool with professional level flexibility and becoming a tool that assumes more of a novice than is likely to be the case. Take a look at the number of failed/problematical installs and upgrades in the support forums as an indication.
I think that if I truly were a novice again, I'd have to have a damn good reason for choosing XOOPS (not that any of the other CMSes available are any easier).
Maybe it's just that the documentation is lacking for the latest releases. But how many novices actually read documentation over a page long anyway? There's always room for improvement, but I feel that the fundamental tenet of 'Keep it Simple' is, little by little, drifting away.

Having said that, I'm off to install another XOOPS site

I agree with the comments as well, however as someone with no coding ability at all, I think I've done quite well with XOOPS so far.

The size of the core does not matter to me but the simplicity of use does. If I had asked for a more basic explanation every time I read a thread that seemed to apply to my situation, but I just couldn't understand, I would be labeled a spammer.

I find that the documentation for installation is generally suited to my level of user. What I find lacking is the usage documentation for both the core and the modules. They say what you can do with a module, but not always how or why you would want to. XOOPS is an ongoing journey of discovery for me!

Fortunately my introduction to XOOPS was with an install of 2.2.3 that gave me no problems whatsoever while I used it. I'm not sure that I would still be here if that had been 2.3.1 but you never know.

Finding modules and establishing compatibility is another issue for me. There are so many modules not in, or not updated in the repository that it is work to determine if something works with 2.3.1 or not. Sure, there is the forum for exactly that, but a new user will be digging through 31 posts perhaps to build a list that would ideally be available on a single wiki page.

The forums are great of course, but a comprehensive list of what is compatible would save a lot of posts.

I think it is safe to say that the module and core developers are about as interested in writing manuals and help files as the basic users are in interested in reading readme files.

Do you ever write something and then think "Why did I spend that time suggesting that someone else do something?"

Here is a wiki page for Modules compatible with 2.3.1

Applause!!

Quote:Should be 2.3.2 now!

So there we go. My first wiki page just a day old and out of date.
Hard to keep pace with XOOPS!

Quote:

I did not think of that.

Tough decision here. OK then here is what I would suggest. Incidentally core impact matters to me just for the sake of tracking components when I do FTP upgrades. It always seems to be the breaking point when I do an install or upgrade.

Anyway suggestions. There should be two different installs. Expert and Bundle. Expert would be just the core and maybe ONE editor (Koivi, the lightest). If not maybe no editor. This would be for people who are well versed in XOOPS Installation. The Bundle package would be the install as it is now with maybe a few basic pieces people would consider necessary for a basic page creation tool. AMS for example. Something like that.

Just brainstorming outloud.

OK since I am finally back to work on this site, I need to go figure out why my install is not working so off to that forum. On a side note once I get past the deadlines I have this month, I would be willing to do some doc work for Xoops. From what I am gathering some Quick start guides might be useful. From Zero to XOOPS blog in 3,2,1 or something like that. Etc etc. If that is something that could be useful I will look into it.

Ken