FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-08-2012, 07:32 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Forums

On 08/08/12 20:26, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 08:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> See the matrix here:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/WebsiteVer2/forums
>
> I was looking at that this morning, and it seems to have not been
> updated in a very long time. I guess your statement implies that its
> still accurate.
>

It's accurate as far as I'm aware, unless any work has since been done
and not documented on this list. The wishlist hasn't changed.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 07:37 PM
Akemi Yagi
 
Default Forums

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 08:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> See the matrix here:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/WebsiteVer2/forums
>
> I was looking at that this morning, and it seems to have not been
> updated in a very long time. I guess your statement implies that its
> still accurate.

People who have been on this mailing list should all know that the
"Forum talk" started long time ago and it's been a come and go subject
for quite a while. The wiki page referenced was created back when the
activity was still high but has not been updated since.

I hate to ignore what has been done in the past and pretend things are
starting new. For example, it was considered, at some point, that
phpBB was a good choice and a good amount of effort to migrate xoops
to phpBB was made. I can list a few threads from the past (year 2008
to 2010):

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2008-June/thread.html#2846

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2009-March/thread.html#4188

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2010-May/thread.html#5565

http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2010-October/thread.html#5915

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 07:40 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Forums

On 08/08/2012 08:37 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> I hate to ignore what has been done in the past and pretend things are
> starting new. For example, it was considered, at some point, that
> phpBB was a good choice and a good amount of effort to migrate xoops
> to phpBB was made. I can list a few threads from the past (year 2008
> to 2010):

yes, and working on facts that are upto 4 years out of date is'nt ideal
either. Its quite possible that software out there has evolved in the
mean time.


--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 07:41 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Forums

On 08/08/2012 08:09 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> SMF was rejected a long time ago on the basis of the license not being
> friendly. Please check back in the archives or refer to the matrix here:
>
> http://wiki.centos.org/WebsiteVer2/forums
>

smf ver2 is BSD licensed. Would that not be acceptable ?

--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:07 PM
Ned Slider
 
Default Forums

On 08/08/12 20:41, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 08:09 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> SMF was rejected a long time ago on the basis of the license not being
>> friendly. Please check back in the archives or refer to the matrix here:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/WebsiteVer2/forums
>>
>
> smf ver2 is BSD licensed. Would that not be acceptable ?
>

Why are you asking me? I didn't impose the restrictions on licensing. I
couldn't care less what license the forum software uses as long as it's
the best software for the job. I'd choose vBulletin if it were up to me.
But I understand if others have a desire to use open source software.

So to answer your question, yes a BSD license is acceptable to me. But
it's not my project.

If you have re-evaluated the restrictions on licensing and come to some
other conclusions since that work was done then please do let us know :-)

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:10 PM
Akemi Yagi
 
Default Forums

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 08:37 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> I hate to ignore what has been done in the past and pretend things are
>> starting new. For example, it was considered, at some point, that
>> phpBB was a good choice and a good amount of effort to migrate xoops
>> to phpBB was made. I can list a few threads from the past (year 2008
>> to 2010):
>
> yes, and working on facts that are upto 4 years out of date is'nt ideal
> either. Its quite possible that software out there has evolved in the
> mean time.

That is what I'm afraid to hear. It means the time and effort spent
back then has gone to the waste land unless there is anything you can
salvage (not savage).

Just hope the current thread does not follow all the past examples and
die down...

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:39 PM
Trevor Hemsley
 
Default Forums

On 08/08/12 21:10, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2012 08:37 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>> I hate to ignore what has been done in the past and pretend things are
>>> starting new. For example, it was considered, at some point, that
>>> phpBB was a good choice and a good amount of effort to migrate xoops
>>> to phpBB was made. I can list a few threads from the past (year 2008
>>> to 2010):
>>
>> yes, and working on facts that are upto 4 years out of date is'nt ideal
>> either. Its quite possible that software out there has evolved in the
>> mean time.
>
> That is what I'm afraid to hear. It means the time and effort spent
> back then has gone to the waste land unless there is anything you can
> salvage (not savage).
>
> Just hope the current thread does not follow all the past examples and
> die down...

Looks to me like the objection to SMF based on its license is now
resolved though so that might put it back into consideration. I've been
reading their doc and it seems quite comprehensive and SMF seems to have
a number of supporters.

I'm unsure how many of the required bullet points it hits though. So
far, I have yet to find any mention of LDAP support though I haven't
explicitly looked for it. Hmmm, now I did and it seems there isn't
anything officially supported but there is something that might work if
hit hard enough.

All the other bullet points look like things I would just expect to find
in an up-to-date forum software. The data migration might be the
stumbling block since I get the impression that xoops/newbb boards are
not exactly widely deployed.

T
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:28 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Forums

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> On 08/08/2012 08:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> See the matrix here:
>>
>> http://wiki.centos.org/WebsiteVer2/forums
>
> I was looking at that this morning, and it seems to have not been
> updated in a very long time. I guess your statement implies that its
> still accurate.

The SMF 'unfriendly license' is probably no longer true.
http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:42 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Forums

On 08/08/2012 09:07 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> smf ver2 is BSD licensed. Would that not be acceptable ?
> Why are you asking me?

were on a list - the question is to everyone on here - not to you.

--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:44 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Forums

On 08/08/2012 09:10 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> yes, and working on facts that are upto 4 years out of date is'nt ideal
>> either. Its quite possible that software out there has evolved in the
>> mean time.
>
> That is what I'm afraid to hear. It means the time and effort spent
> back then has gone to the waste land unless there is anything you can
> salvage (not savage).

thats quite a strange comment - are you saying that we should only
consider software as it was back in 2008 and ignore the fact that it
might have moved on since then ?

> Just hope the current thread does not follow all the past examples and
> die down...

depends a lot on intention and the desire to fix something. If we make
the effort and go through with it - I am sure it will happen.


--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
ICQ: 2522219 | Yahoo IM: z00dax | Gtalk: z00dax
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:27 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org