smf vs phpbb3

[Dannii]

They won't read it, but I will, and I'm working on collecting posts like this.

[arod]

... i accidentally voted for 'smf must catch up' option

Anyone aruing if i edit the poll and enable the ability to change votes (i can't touch the votes themselves this is not an SMF option) but really don't want my vote for being that LOL

actually, this is (at least a little bit) funny.
phpbb3 does allow users to change their vote. (controlled by poll author)
so, by making a mistake in the voting and encountering the "can't change vote" wall, you must have realized that your vote was, after all, correct...

[metallica48423]

smf has it too.

Its a poll option (allow users to change their vote).  The poll author didn't select it

regardless, i don't think it really matters what i voted

[elfishtroll]

They won\'t read it, but I will, and I\'m working on collecting posts like this.

LMAO you better collect them fast!This thread dropped from 6 pages to 4! lol

[青山 素子]

They won\'t read it, but I will, and I\'m working on collecting posts like this.

LMAO you better collect them fast!This thread dropped from 6 pages to 4! lol

That would be because your tangent got split to a new topic by one of the team.

Now, shall we go back on topic before this is locked?

[elfishtroll]

umm.. yes... Strangely, there wastnt an entry or post indicating the split.So I hereby retract my earlier insinuation, and suggest instead, a feature that places a notation in the tail of the thread indicating the thread was split?< ducks and runs back under a bridge>

[redone]

Notation or not you were given an explanation regarding why the post was split. It's hard to imagine posting for example over at phpBB about its features vs SMF.

Your bound to get at the very least at bias perspective from many users. I have always found with boards I helped friends with who ran phpBB that many basic features included within phpBB you had to install a modification or hack to achieve this.

That's my own personal view and not that of the Simplemachines team. I wish them well on the release and like Grudge said its good news for everyone no matter which software you prefer or run.

[青山 素子]

umm.. yes... Strangely, there wastnt an entry or post indicating the split.So I hereby retract my earlier insinuation, and suggest instead, a feature that places a notation in the tail of the thread indicating the thread was split?< ducks and runs back under a bridge>

That sounds like a great idea for a mod. If you are interested, please post a topic in the mod requests board.

[metallica48423]

sorry i didnt post here about the split. i did mention it in the other thread though. i was in the meeting at the time so i kinda got busy  :p

[arod]

some disclosure:
i am a phpbb user. i did install smf and played with it in my "sandbox", but haven't decided to move.
twisi, both smf and phpbb has several meaningful advantages:
phpbb advantages (or, smf shortcomings...)



• first and foremost, the license. this issue pretty much overshadows everything else. it's not that i am absolutely oppose using something with a strange license, but i am not going to if there is a decent product using GPL. in this case, there are numerous decent forums using GPL. this issue is not just cosmetics: for instance, smf 2.0 beta exists for some 5 months now, and is still unavailable to mere mortals. phpbb had (most of) their code available throughout the development process.
• the template system. smf "templating" is somewhat of a mess
• 2 clean, 100% xhtml compliant styles (personally, i also think they look better than smf's default style, but this is entirely subjective). thing is, if default/built-in themes are not 100% compliant, you can't ask it of 3rd party style designers, so amf ends up being non-standard
• i don't want to begin counting small stuff, like moderation queue, custom profile fields, user warning system, custom bbcode, post drafts  etc. everything (or almost everything) here can be added as a package in smf, and nothing is critical

phpbb main disadvantages:



• significant parts of the code are still messy. i wish i could say it is all phpbb2 legacy, but unfortunately some of it is new code.
• the most glaring omission is a decent package manager. they say they are working on one, but, unlike the main branch, this development is hidden, and could not be trusted until it exposed.
• phpbb team's attitude leaves a lot to be desired. this is true both on their site and in the way they deal with user's requests. (a nice example is their stubborn refusal to even consider quick-reply)
• this one is not clear yet, but it seems that smf is faster on mySQL. otoh, phpbb can use many other dbms backends, so this item can appear on both sides. also, i am not aware of any serious speed comparison, so this may not even be true...
• again, i don't count small stuff, such as  quick-reply, calendar, more elaborated bbcode etc.


bottom line: though each system has it's cons and pros, and there is no clear winner, for me, personally, the license is a deal-breaker for smf.

[Jade Elizabeth]

where is the unsubscribe topic button?!

[Spaceman-Spiff]

• first and foremost, the license. this issue pretty much overshadows everything else. it's not that i am absolutely oppose using something with a strange license, but i am not going to if there is a decent product using GPL. in this case, there are numerous decent forums using GPL. this issue is not just cosmetics: for instance, smf 2.0 beta exists for some 5 months now, and is still unavailable to mere mortals. phpbb had (most of) their code available throughout the development process.

There are plenty of Open-Source Licenses out there that aren't GPL. Mainly, one way or another, were created because they were not satisfied with GPL. I believe the SMF license was created before GPL v3 was released, and GPL v2 had poor protection on web scripts. That time the dev team considered other licenses, such as Affero (who has better coverage on web-scripts), but finally decided on a new license instead for better protection.

In a way, SMF is still a free software, just more restrictive on redistribution rules.

Why do you care so much that everything must be GPL. Even GPL has its weaknesses. Just no one ever exploited phpBB enough yet in the past so they would care to switch license...

[青山 素子]

where is the unsubscribe topic button?!

If it is e-mail alerts, try the "notify" link at the bottom of the page right under the last post.

first and foremost, the license. this issue pretty much overshadows everything else. it's not that i am absolutely oppose using something with a strange license, but i am not going to if there is a decent product using GPL. in this case, there are numerous decent forums using GPL. this issue is not just cosmetics: for instance, smf 2.0 beta exists for some 5 months now, and is still unavailable to mere mortals. phpbb had (most of) their code available throughout the development process.

Hope you don't mind the reformatting of your lists to something a bit easier to respond to.

There are actually a few items in here, but I'll try and address them all. SMF's license is actually fairly close to the QPL (an OSI-approved license). The only difference is that we don't allow redistribution of any kind (the QPL allows unmodified redistribution).

As for the betas being unavailable, there is quite a good reason for that. Although our early code is usually very stable, it has good potential for some big bugs. We release to a small group first so that we can get some outside testing in with a much easier to manage group. It would be total insanity if everyone was able to use the beta release. Take a look in our support forums and see all the duplicate issues posted on. Imagine big beta bugs being posted about 20 or more times a day. As it is, we advise our charter members to not run the early betas on production systems and to make backups. Some still don't listen to that and have no way to back out when they hit a big bug.

Pre-release code for SMF 2.0 is planned, once we get the major bugs quashed. This usually happens in the RC stage. That is the way it always has been since SMF started.

I will also note that you can do closed testing with GPL software, but you need a bit more organization and formality to set it up so it doesn't count as distribution (and thus anyone can get a copy from a tester).

the template system. smf "templating" is somewhat of a mess

2 clean, 100% xhtml compliant styles (personally, i also think they look better than smf's default style, but this is entirely subjective). thing is, if default/built-in themes are not 100% compliant, you can't ask it of 3rd party style designers, so amf ends up being non-standard

SMF templating can be a mess, yes. It is very flexible and thus can become very complicated. We have recognized this issue and there are ongoing projects to see what we can do to help.

As for SMF not being compliant to XHTML, it is. Go validate a new install and it will pass as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. What you are thinking of is "semantic markup", a push to move presentation in CSS. There is no standard for this, it is just a style.

We do recognize the time has come for better markup, particularly as browsers that properly support CSS have become popular and workarounds have been developed for the one major one that doesn't. Changing the whole system takes time and pushing something out that is half-done isn't our style. We hope to have a default theme that will be fully-CSS driven where appropriate (tables will still be used where there is tabular data - the proper use for them) when 2.0 is out, but it is a lot of work to do.

i don't want to begin counting small stuff, like moderation queue, custom profile fields, user warning system, custom bbcode, post drafts&nbsp; etc. everything (or almost everything) here can be added as a package in smf, and nothing is critical

Moderation queue, custom profile fields, and user warning will all be part of the 2.0 release. I believe custom bbcode might be as well (I haven't looked to be sure). Most of those features can be added to SMF 1.1 as you stated.

bottom line: though each system has it's cons and pros, and there is no clear winner, for me, personally, the license is a deal-breaker for smf.

Look closer at our license, it really isn't that bad. The only things you can't do that you could under the GPL is distribute SMF yourself, distribute modified versions of SMF, and remove the visible copyright notice (under the GPL you must still leave in the notices in the code).

As I said above, private testing is allowed under the GPL (as long as you can make it not equate to the legal definition of distribution). Having a private development repository is also allowed. The only source you need to provide is that for the versions you distribute. That most projects have an open repository doesn't make it a requirement.

Anyway, I might have missed something, but I believe those are the major differences. If you find those to be unconscionable, then you are entitled to that opinion, but I will respectfully disagree with it.

Why do you care so much that everything must be GPL. Even GPL has its weaknesses. Just no one ever exploited phpBB enough yet in the past so they would care to switch license...

Funny story. The predecessor to SMF, YaBB SE, was under the GPL. A project called Supermod came along and lifted the YaBB SE code. With it, they added tons of modifications created for that system (a copyright mess in itself). This often created buggy, unsecure, code (not that YaBB SE was perfect, it had problems too). The problem came in that people often thought Supermod was YaBB SE. As a result, it gave the project a lot of undeserved negative attention. This is one of many reasons for the current license being the way it is.

As for switching licenses, unless phpBB requires copyright assignment for code that goes into their product, every person who has a line of code in that product would need to agree to a license switch for it to happen. This is one of the primary reasons many projects (including those managed by the FSF) require assignment.

[Jade Elizabeth]

no it just pops up in my "unread messages" thingie...lol

[gemigene]

no it just pops up in my "unread messages" thingie...lol

LOL! Must be a glitch, I get the same from a thread to which I unsubscribed to 4 or 5 months ago...

Happy New Year!
Gene

[Orstio]

I believe the SMF license was created before GPL v3 was released, and GPL v2 had poor protection on web scripts.

For the record, GPL v3 doesn't really offer any more protection for the script creator than GPL v2 did.  The major change from GPL v2 to v3 is that if the GPL is in conflict with local law (like  it is in Australia and New Zealand for example), the GPL overrides the local law.  The GPL guarantees the script creator a "no warranty" license, but that is not in accordance with laws in some parts of the world.  GPL v2 took no stance on that, and GPL v3 does.

[青山 素子]

no it just pops up in my "unread messages" thingie...lol

LOL! Must be a glitch, I get the same from a thread to which I unsubscribed to 4 or 5 months ago...

Unread posts shows all posts to which one posted in which haven't been read yet. As of right now, there is no way to remove topics you aren't interested in from this list.

For the record, GPL v3 doesn't really offer any more protection for the script creator than GPL v2 did.  The major change from GPL v2 to v3 is that if the GPL is in conflict with local law (like  it is in Australia and New Zealand for example), the GPL overrides the local law.  The GPL guarantees the script creator a "no warranty" license, but that is not in accordance with laws in some parts of the world.  GPL v2 took no stance on that, and GPL v3 does.

Indeed. The only thing the GPL really cares about protecting is the code so others can use it. The biggest thing in GPL v3 is dealing with "TIVOisation" where the hardware locks you out of changing the GPL code on it because of DRM. It also deals with patents a bit more explicitly. It doesn't protect the original author, it just makes sure that once the code is out there, it can't be taken away.

[Sverre]

Pre-release code for SMF 2.0 is planned, once we get the major bugs quashed. This usually happens in the RC stage. That is the way it always has been since SMF started.

I'm pretty sure both the 1.0 and 1.1 branches had public beta(s)

[Jade Elizabeth]

no it just pops up in my "unread messages" thingie...lol

LOL! Must be a glitch, I get the same from a thread to which I unsubscribed to 4 or 5 months ago...

Unread posts shows all posts to which one posted in which haven't been read yet. As of right now, there is no way to remove topics you aren't interested in from this list.

* Alundra wonders if phpBB3 has it

[arod]

There are plenty of Open-Source Licenses out there that aren't GPL. Mainly, one way or another, were created because they were not satisfied with GPL. I believe the SMF license was created before GPL v3 was released, and GPL v2 had poor protection on web scripts. That time the dev team considered other licenses, such as Affero (who has better coverage on web-scripts), but finally decided on a new license instead for better protection.

In a way, SMF is still a free software, just more restrictive on redistribution rules.

Why do you care so much that everything must be GPL. Even GPL has its weaknesses. Just no one ever exploited phpBB enough yet in the past so they would care to switch license...

i absolutely do not want to begin a flame war or a "mine is bigger than yours" discussion, but please let me add a few words regarding the license:
true, there are many "open source" licenses.
i wouldn't mind at all if smf was released under apache license, bsd license, one of perl licenses (i believe perl and perl scripts are usually released with dual-license). there may be other well-known OS licenses i forgot. there is nothing especially sacred in GPL, except it's being the first and best known OS license.
however, i would not like it if every project would come with its own unique license. ianal, and don't wish to become one.
moreover, a license that prohibits re-distribution of the code in its original or modified form can not, under any reasonable sense of the word, be considered "Open Source" license.