Hi, forgive a noob for asking stupid questions, but I am stuck between using Mambo or SMF with TinyPortal. I am currently working on practice sites using both methods. I would prefer to use SMF, but have a few questions. I currently have chat and arcade modules installed on SMF with TinyPortal. I would also like a weblinks directory and a picture gallery with user submitted pics. I know it's possible, but how difficult would it be to stick these things onto my site?
I don't want have a huge amount of time to spend on this, so I'm looking for something that I can just throw on with not much trouble, configure and use. That's why I'm considering Mambo as the "easy" option at the moment.
Also, with the SMFarcade, how can I get "top arcade players" and "recent highscores" or something similar to appear in blocks in TinyPortal?
Thanks for any help.
QuoteAlso, with the SMFarcade, how can I get "top arcade players" and "recent highscores" or something similar to appear in blocks in TinyPortal?
Those are codesnippets for putting in TP blocks, so they are pretty easy to implent.
The gallery you have coppermine you can implent, if you do a bit of search here in the threads there are one with step by step instruktions that look really good. ( A bit of coding there but it didnt look that hard )
All thats easy with Tinyportal combined with SMF, easier to me than any CMS out there..you can't just install it and think it's going to do it all by itself..thats why theres an Admin. if an Admin can't Admin TP and it's power controls then they shouldn't be an Admin..there is support for anything that has to do with TP and SMF, but here the support you get is far Superior than any place else..I highly recommend TP to anyone. :)
It really depends on what you need. You can bridge SMF with Joomla/Mambo for a full CMS solution. Or, you could do Tiny Portal with SMF for a simple portal solution.
The two options are different. A portal generally wraps around a single component to dress it up and add some functionality. In the case of SMF & TP, the core is SMF and TP adds to that. With Joomla/Mambo & SMF, the forum becomes a component of an entire site management system.
If your site is primarily a message board, go SMF & TP. If the message board is just a feature of the site, go with Joomla/Mambo and bridge in SMF (or nearly any assortment of message board applications).
Joomla is the new fork of Mambo - I've found it to be an improvement, while the workings are similar. In other words, if you like Mambo, you'll like Joomla. It seems the support and features may be heading the Joomla direction.
SMF & TP is much easier, but it also isn't capable of nearly as many things.
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 19, 2006, 09:55:06 PMIt really depends on what you need. You can bridge SMF with Joomla/Mambo for a full CMS solution. Or, you could do Tiny Portal with SMF for a simple portal solution.
The two options are different. A portal generally wraps around a single component to dress it up and add some functionality. In the case of SMF & TP, the core is SMF and TP adds to that. With Joomla/Mambo & SMF, the forum becomes a component of an entire site management system.
If your site is primarily a message board, go SMF & TP. If the message board is just a feature of the site, go with Joomla/Mambo and bridge in SMF (or nearly any assortment of message board applications).
Joomla is the new fork of Mambo - I've found it to be an improvement, while the workings are similar. In other words, if you like Mambo, you'll like Joomla. It seems the support and features may be heading the Joomla direction.
I agree, TP is designed to be a portal for your forum, basically.
QuoteSMF & TP is much easier, but it also isn't capable of nearly as many things.
Yet! ;)
I'd suggest looking at these:
http://www.tinyportal.net/smf/index.php?page=14
http://www.tinyportal.net/smf/index.php?topic=1828.0
I'm sure there are other topics here which cover what Bloc wants to do. You can search for them.
My Two Cents...
I have seem several sites with Mambo or Joomla and while they do seem to have a large variety of features, I believe TP is the best bet. It is still new and growing, and from what I have seen, Bloc has big plans. Ultimately it will be similar to Joomla and Mambo but the major difference is that it is coded strictly to function for/with SMF and will not require a bridging solution to make SMF work. I have seen that not only will he have the downloads section but he also is planning a gallery, arcade and several other large features so it will be even better than any other portal solution.
You can only do so much, though. Ultimately, any application is limited by its core.
You just have to determine what your main need is. Is your main focus a message board or is it content? A portal can never be as capable as a true CMS.
This isn't a bad thing, though - just two different purposes.
Quote from: technodragon73 on March 19, 2006, 10:16:28 PMMy Two Cents...
I have seem several sites with Mambo or Joomla and while they do seem to have a large variety of features, I believe TP is the best bet. It is still new and growing, and from what I have seen, Bloc has big plans. Ultimately it will be similar to Joomla and Mambo but the major difference is that it is coded strictly to function for/with SMF and will not require a bridging solution to make SMF work. I have seen that not only will he have the downloads section but he also is planning a gallery, arcade and several other large features so it will be even better than any other portal solution.
That's my impression and understanding of it, as well. It may not be near Mambo/Joomla in features, but give it time, and it'll probably get up there.
Yes, the fact that it's designed just for SMF, when it progresses to rival other portals, will give it a very distinct edge over the others for any SMF user. And as SMF evolves, it'll rival other forums more.
@TwinsX2Dad
True, but SMF itself in evolving rapidly so between the two I think (like anunlike) that they will become better and more powerful than any other CMS out there.
For that to happen, TP would have to stand on its own and SMF would have to transcend what every other message board has been able to do.
The foundation of either obviously isn't headed in that direction. No message board has been the foundation of a CMS and TP was designed as a wrapper for SMF. In every instance, every CMS, including the custom designed premium offerings, has been without a high end message board component. At best, there have only been light portals fitted around message boards.
A CMS must be, by design, an enterprise capable solution. A look at Plumtree, Metadot, CommNav, WebSphere, etc. illustrates that TP isn't even in the same league.
SMF and TP have been intended for and used almost exclusively by personal or SOHO entities and hobbyists. There has been nothing rapid in its development, nor anything earth-shattering in its features.
SMF is good, as is TP - but let's not make them out to be more than they are. SMF is a midrange free message board - not anywhere close to being a premier offering - and TP is a great addition to it. The way the developers act over at SMF indicates the core offering will never become a high end offering, nor will it even pretend to rival the premiere scripts.
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 20, 2006, 02:35:24 AM
For that to happen, TP would have to stand on its own and SMF would have to transcend what every other message board has been able to do.
I don't think it would have to transcend them. All it needs is to be good enough to stack up with all the rest. IMO, it does that already. It's only in its 1.1 version, so give it time and it will evolve.
Quote from: TwinsX2DadThe foundation of either obviously isn't headed in that direction. No message board has been the foundation of a CMS and TP was designed as a wrapper for SMF. In every instance, every CMS, including the custom designed premium offerings, has been without a high end message board component. At best, there have only been light portals fitted around message boards.
I agree.
That said, even though I compared it with Mambo/Joomla, it's not a CMS, but I do think that it can be designed to rival other portals. It depends upon what's planned for it. However, the one thing it does have is the fact that it revolves specifically around SMF and they work extremely well together.
Honestly, I don't know exactly, in detail, what the differences are between CMSs and prortals, but I do think that it has the potential to rival other software, depending on the direction it goes.
Obviously, if it's not going to be developed as a CMS, it's not going to rival other CMSs.
Quote from: TwinsX2DadA CMS must be, by design, an enterprise capable solution. A look at Plumtree, Metadot, CommNav, WebSphere, etc. illustrates that TP isn't even in the same league.
SMF and TP have been intended for and used almost exclusively by personal or SOHO entities and hobbyists. There has been nothing rapid in its development, nor anything earth-shattering in its features.
Well, TP's not even out of beta, yet.
SMF is developing nicely, IMO. A product doesn't have to be earth-shattering to be better software or find a better niche or could potentially otherwise replace or compete with the popular ones.
On a few other phpBB powered forums, I loosely regularly visit, they've had problems with some things and so I've suggested SMF. They've all complemented it and said that it's a very nice piece of software and that if they didn't have everything invested in the software they had and if they knew they could keep all the features and functionality (of the CMSs), they'd consider using it.
Quote from: TwinsX2DadSMF is good, as is TP - but let's not make them out to be more than they are. SMF is a midrange free message board - not anywhere close to being a premier offering - and TP is a great addition to it. The way the developers act over at SMF indicates the core offering will never become a high end offering, nor will it even pretend to rival the premiere scripts.
I have to ask, why do you say that SMF is (only) "midrange"? What makes something "midrange" as opposed to "high-end" and "premier"?
If SMF was midrange, then why would there be any massive 1000000+ post forums? What "premiere" scripts are you talking about?
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 05:07:35 AMIf SMF was midrange, then why would there be any massive 1000000+ post forums? What "premiere" scripts are you talking about?
I have to ask that, as well.
One I like to visit semi-regularly is the TAPS 18+ forum (http://www.taps18.com), not to mention TAPS' regular forum (http://www.taps-forums.com) for minors. They're both about the same size. You can also look at Big-Boards.com (http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=SMF,all) and get a listing of huge SMF forums.
So, I don't quite understand what you mean by "midrange" and "high-end" and "premier". Are you referring to the number of members it can accomodate or that the software isn't up to the quality of others or what?
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 03:39:52 AMI don't think it would have to transcend them. All it needs is to be good enough to stack up with all the rest. IMO, it does that already. It's only in its 1.1 version, so give it time and it will evolve.
Very true - but even if it simply stacks up with the rest, that isn't enough to make it a suitable core for a CMS. It makes it a suitable core for a message board and a message board is just an optional component of a CMS.
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 03:39:52 AMThat said, even though I compared it with Mambo/Joomla, it's not a CMS, but I do think that it can be designed to rival other portals. It depends upon what's planned for it. However, the one thing it does have is the fact that it revolves specifically around SMF and they work extremely well together.
Honestly, I don't know exactly, in detail, what the differences are between CMSs and prortals, but I do think that it has the potential to rival other software, depending on the direction it goes.
Obviously, if it's not going to be developed as a CMS, it's not going to rival other CMSs.
And, like I was trying to convey earlier, neither SMF, nor TP is a CMS. One is a message board and the other is a portal. We all know what a message board is, but the definition of a portal and a CMS are a little more vague - at least to those who don't need to know the difference. And, for 99% of those running SMF & TP, not only is the difference moot, a CMS is overkill.
If you base your site on a message board, no matter what you do to that message board, it will always be the basis for your site. Your site is a message board site. If you add mods, it is a modified message board site. If you add a portal, then what you have depends on what type of portal you're using; it is either a message board portal or a site portal. Either type of portal can act in many ways like the other.
A look at two CMS sites can illuminate what a CMS can do. Look at a magazine site like Car and Driver (http://caranddriver.com). Then take a look at a technology site like ars technica (http://arstechnica.com). On both sites, you can get a ton of information without ever accessing their forum components. On both sites, the information can be added and modified without ever seeing the restrictions imposed by a message board. I am active on both of these sites and have been for many years. Yet I use their message boards on maybe 25% of my visits. Car and Driver uses the IdealBB, which had every feature SMF has now, but Ideal Science had the features available four years ago. Then, ars technica, with their average of over 3,500 users online at any time, runs Groupee, which is a rework of the old OpenTopic platform. I was running OpenTopic and UBB from 1999 and had every feature we are now seeing on SMF even then. Granted, those were perl platforms, but their transition to php continued the feature sets.
The point here is that, on both the Car and Driver site and the ars technica site, many people can have varying degrees of update and publishing ability without ever accessing the message board.
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 03:39:52 AMWell, TP's not even out of beta, yet.
SMF is developing nicely, IMO. A product doesn't have to be earth-shattering to be better software or find a better niche or could potentially otherwise replace or compete with the popular ones.
On a few other phpBB powered forums, I loosely regularly visit, they've had problems with some things and so I've suggested SMF. They've all complemented it and said that it's a very nice piece of software and that if they didn't have everything invested in the software they had and if they knew they could keep all the features and functionality (of the CMSs), they'd consider using it.
SMF never seems to be out of beta, either. Even though it is in beta, TP is fantastic - but we must keep in mind its mission. It is not a CMS and it will never be able to meet the needs of some sites which require a CMS. I run several sites which couldn't function with a portal of any type. This is okay though, as there are sites which could never use a message board and others which have no use for HTML. It is in what is needed.
On one site, I've been running SMF for nearly a year now. I've also had TP on it, since about September. On that particular site, a CMS would be better, but the amount of traffic doesn't warrant it yet. So, for the time being, I am using SMF & TP. I have one other site which I'd like to try SMF on, but I can't because SMF doesn't have the capabilities of the setup I have on there now - that being IPB. A conversion means a huge number of posts would be unreadable. A third site I think would benefit from SMF won't ever run SMF because it is a message board for a charter school. As such, school administrators and staff must have read access of personal messages. We all know SMF's short-sighted and view and misplaced morality on that subject. It would be disasterous to allow database access to school staff, as one slip could be disasterous. Because of this issue, no school in this state can legally run SMF for their students.
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 03:39:52 AMI have to ask, why do you say that SMF is (only) "midrange"? What makes something "midrange" as opposed to "high-end" and "premier"?
Midrange means it has limited functionality compared to the premiere applications. It has nothing to do with scalability. A common misunderstanding is that scalability is a factor of a premiere message board, the truth is that scalability is dependent on your server and your database. SMF can handle 2,000,000 posts as easily as can any other php based message board. The same claim can be made by UBBThreads, phpBB, IPB, vB, MyBB, Snitz, WebCrossing......the list is endless, because php based message boards have no internal limitation.
While I don't consider vB or IPB to be premiere apps, either, they are a lot closer to being top flight apps. IPB 2.0 introduced high/low bandwidth access, as did vB 3.0. Both of those apps also offer users their choice of flat, threaded or hybrid view on the fly. They each allow you to appear or not appear in the online panel on the fly. They each offer topic view for their PM features. Both offer user selectable options for WYSIWYG posting. They both offer highly customizable notification options. They each have much more comprehensive backend search features. The permissions settings are far more intuitive than they are in SMF. Groups are much more detailed and simpler to configure. I'd never inadvertently blocked a member group from a public forum (board in SMF-speak) until I came to SMF.
phpBB is far more capable than is SMF, but because it is loosely monitored open-source and in need of so many hacks to attain these capabilities, the software isn't nearly as clean or efficient. I had a phpBB site once which had so many modifications on it that each page view took over 120 database queries. So, my recommendation here would be - do you want an efficient and simple to run message board? Get SMF. If you want one which is a headache to run, but has so many features, try phpBB.
Would I run phpBB? Not anymore - I can do a Joomla site with an SMF or IPB message board component with far less headache and a much more professional look and feel. Or I can take the server light approach and do SMF & TP, but only if I don't need the content management capabilities of a CMS.
Some portals do their best to emulate a good CMS in a number of ways, but because of their foundation, they are too restricted to be anything more than just a portal. On the flip side, some packages claiming to be a CMS are really nothing more than souped up portals.
An extremely clear explanation of the differences between a CMS and a portal was written by Tom Marciniak. In Tom's article, he explains not only the difference, but where each has its niche and where they fill various needs. If you're interested, you can read the article by clicking here (http://www.prescientdigital.com/Prescient_Research/Articles/Content_Management_Articles/CMS_by_any_other_name.htm).
Just remember - I am not badmouthing SMF or TP - I am simply being realistic about their capabilities and direction. Their capabilities don't make them bad, just different. We don't all need a Ferrari to get back and forth to work, but some are willing to pay extra for the performance. We don't all need a nine-passenger SUV to get to the grocery store, but some do. The rest can use something smaller, less powerful or more economical - and cheaper. On some of my sites, I enjoy the simple competence of SMF & TP. On other sites, I need more.
SMF is a good, basic, message board offering. If it grows into something more than just basic, that is great - but it will always be only a message board. One with similar features to what other message boards had five years ago. In fact, if we toss out platforms, other boards had the features SMF had before the twentieth century came to an end - and they had the features earlier in the development process.
And, if you want to learn about different computer technologies or php or perl or message boards or whatever, make sure you check out ars technica. I was a moderator there for a long time, but gave it up because I was tired of the high volume and the high egos. The rabid geeks will beat you up, but you'll learn a lot in the process, if your skin isn't too thin. :)
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 05:07:35 AMIf SMF was midrange, then why would there be any massive 1000000+ post forums? What "premiere" scripts are you talking about?
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 05:58:44 AMI have to ask that, as well.
Answered in the last post.
Although my comments in this topic are liable to knock points off my karma or whatever it is called. ;)
QuoteSMF never seems to be out of beta, either.
SMF 1.0 has been Gold for over a year. SMF 1.1 is in Release candidate stage now too, you could say that there are no Beta releases of SMF right now..
As for the rest of your post... well phpBB has almost nothing compared to SMF feature wise. I don't know how you could possibly say that. Even something as simple as child boards require major modifications. vB and IPB are nice, but not as nice as SMF. And SMF has always had lowbandwidth/mobile access.
QuoteSMF is a good, basic, message board offering. If it grows into something more than just basic, that is great - but it will always be only a message board. One with similar features to what other message boards had five years ago. In fact, if we toss out platforms, other boards had the features SMF had before the twentieth century came to an end - and they had the features earlier in the development process.
Um, right.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 06:37:18 AMSMF 1.0 has been Gold for over a year. SMF 1.1 is in Release candidate stage now too, you could say that there are no Beta releases of SMF right now..
Semantics - what one company calls a 'release candidate', others call a 'beta' release. Alpha is internal & developer release. Beta is public release, indicative of the full product. Regardless, all release candidate software is actually beta software.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 06:37:18 AMAs for the rest of your post... well phpBB has almost nothing compared to SMF feature wise. I don't know how you could possibly say that. Even something as simple as child boards require major modifications. vB and IPB are nice, but not as nice as SMF.
Huh? In basic configuration, both phpBB & SMF are nearly twins in feature sets. What sets the two apart is the package manager - and that is an idea ripped off from earlier software efforts. The problem is that the SMF package manager is extremely problematic for anything more than one or two modifications. After that, the modifications available for phpBB number in the thousands, where I can't even get mods to make SMF act like a basic IPB.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 06:37:18 AMAnd SMF has always had lowbandwidth/mobile access.
Where is it in the basic install? To have WAP capability is like saying I have a home theater system because I have a portable TV connected to a boombox. WAP capability is simple to include, but useless for those who don't want the bells & whistles and simply want to browse quickly. Claiming WAP capability is not the same as having a low bandwidth mirror like IPB, vB, MyBB and a number of others offer. This capability means I can fire up my Lynx browser and view only the basics. Doing this with a slow modem on a bad phone line means I still can get my information quickly.
I'll tell you what - you tell me five things SMF can do that vB or IPB cannot do and I might place some validity on your statement that they aren't as nice as SMF. In my last big post, I mentioned four or five features considered requirements by large sites that SMF cannot provide.
I say this without (yet) admitting I can't stand vBulletin - but it is true, I can't stand vBulletin. But given a choice, on a mission critical site, I'd choose vB over SMF.
For a personal or light need SOHO site, SMF is great. The fact that it is free gives hobbyists, poor people and personal Web sites the ability to have a nicely featured message board.
But again, this topic was started by someone wanting to know if they should use Tiny Portal. My response was based on the fact that individual didn't tell us what functionality was required. It was not intended to be a pro-con-SMF topic and I've not taken it there. What I have done is state facts. When I have stated personal or subjective points, I have tried to make it clear that was a personal preference issue (like with the vB dislike). What was my intention was to get more information to help this person make an intelligent decision. None of us are getting commissions to sell TP or SMF - we are here to help people. Without all the information, to respond to this person in a definitive fashion would be as irresponsible as recommending a car to someone without knowing what they need a car for.
Bill: I need a new car. What do you recommend.
Tom: Buy a Cadillac Escalade with the 23" rims and four wheel drive and the nav system.
Bill: But I need something that is fuel efficient and easy to park, so I can make it two miles to work.
But what is happening here is this:
Bill: I need a new car.
TP Folks: Get a Toyota Corolla. It is cheap, reliable, efficient, well built and easy to use.
Bill: But I have six kids I need to get to church on Sunday through the snow.
You may like SMF - I know I like it just fine - but like the Toyota Corolla, it cannot do everything. Plus, without all of the honest facts, one cannot make a valid decision, nor offer advice. All you can do is act on emotion.
Ultimately, I have to agree that it depends on what direction it ends up going and how CMS-like or portal-like it evolves into, which depends on whatever it is that you consider that to be.
And, of course, it just as much necessarily depends upon what the user wants to use it for.
Personally, I plan on using it for putting up a lot of articles and "essay-like" written content. If I can get it to do everything I'd like it to do in regards to articles, I will use that. I also plan on adding a lot of custom features to it which will, in essence, make it seem CMS-like, as I see / understand it. So, in my case, I plan on making it fairly CMSesque, where the forum will be just one part of the whole site, it won't seem to be built around the forum.
There's always a stable and final release ready to go. 1.1 may still be in beta, if you want to call it that, but the 1.0.x line has clearly been out as final and stable releases for a while. 1.1 will be out as final and stable probably pretty soon.
It sounds like you seem to be saying that forum software must be feature loaded by default to be "premier" or "high-end". That seems to imply that it must be prepared to accomodate organizations, large business, etc. with all the features that they will need. Just because features that you would use or you think should come standard don't come standard doesn't mean it's "midrange". The developers have done it this way on purpose, to accomodate most users with most standard featues and not have it be bloated. Even if you think it accomodates personal, light, SOHO sites, etc. better than any other, that doesn't mean it can be relegated to a lower quality range software. There are mods for things that don't come standard and adding mods is very easy to do. Personally, I find the way SMF is set up, in that sense, to be a plus as opposed to making it "midrange".
I'd argue that basic forum software which has more emphasis on basic aspects of the functionality; security, usability, efficiency, etc. is more "high-end" and "premier" than just going for software that's just feature loaded. We can say that most cars that have more features are usually better cars overall, as you know that if a car can afford a lot of luxary, the basics will have been given attention to match the overall quality. But forum software may not be like that. phpBB, for example, has horrid problems with hackings and vulnerabilities, even though you say it comes with pretty much the same standard features as SMF. So, I'd rather software have the basics taken care of and treated with care as opposed to just being feature rich.
As for mods, you can always request one or have someone create one. Then you will have what you want. If you release it to the public, it will be available to all.
Ultimately all reasons for something being "high-end" or "premier" as opposed to being "midrange" are personal. You say you hate vB, yet because it comes with more features, features that you find valuable and usable, even if those features seem to be necessary to service a certian niche, it seems you're saying that it's automatically "high-end" and "premier" as opposed to one that doesn't come with those features, which is only "midrange".
If vB fulfills a need that SMF doesn't seem to be able to, it's your pregorative to use it. Again, though, just because it suits your needs does not mean it can somehow objectively be labelled "high-end" and "premier" software. The simple fact is that it's built as a basic forum with a lot built in features that will be utilized, in general, by all kinds of different niches. Whether it has more, less or the same as other forum software, I couldn't say, as I'm not near as familiar with others. But, what I can say is that just because it doesn't suit your needs or even needs of a certain niche, as you see it, doesn't mean it can somehow objectively be called "midrange".
As you said, and I agree, it can be emotional.
To say it again, it's only at version 1.1, it will evolve and features will be added to it.
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 05:58:44 AMYou can also look at Big-Boards.com (http://rankings.big-boards.com/?filter=SMF,all) and get a listing of huge SMF forums.
Been there, viewed that.
The biggest SMF board is......(drum roll, please)......
Red and White KopLiverpool football club message board
It has 1.83 million posts, which puts it in 511th place (page 26).
The number two SMF board is......(trumpets, please)......
40k OnlineWarhammer 40k message boards
It has 1.26 million posts, enough for 794th place (page 40).
Neither is huge. In fact, neither is even mid-sized. I administered a karaoke board for a distributor for three years - based on the list at Big-Boards, we would have placed in the top 50. This was karaoke - not anything remotely popular (or in good taste). :laugh:
I admit that some of the added features are desirable from a subjective view. But these are interactive sites. As such, one must take into consideration what your users want and/or need. All too often, a site owner settles for something and will rationalize their decision no matter what others want. Not only that, but many of the extra features that the others offer make for a much simpler admin job. A look at the incredibly in-depth configuration options of both IPB and vB illustrate this.
Now, with this being said, if you're not interested in the additional features, why look forward to the next version? And why wait for potential additions when those features are available now? If you need them, you certainly cannot wait for them. And, if you need them, shouldn't they be discussed as part of your decision making process?
This is what I've been trying to show here - that SMF is not the end-all, do-all of forum software. It is enough for many. It is enough for one of my sites and I am very happy with it there. But it isn't enough for my other sites. The only other one I've considered it for would require manually editing over 2000 posts - a job which would not be required if I were to switch it to vB (it is IPB). By the same token, if it were a vB site, I could easily convert it to an IPB site - both vB and IPB have the capabilities I need. The only reason I considered SMF for it is to avoid buying another license. Move that license to a new site and replace it with SMF - but it won't work, so I dropped the idea.
Yes, I did mention I don't like vB, but that is because of the Jelsoft attitude. I own 9 vB licenses, so I must not dislike it THAT badly.
I do have to agree with a statement Bloc made the other day - SMF is easy to write mods for. This is a testimony for the way the code was written. It works well, for its intended purpose. Bloc is a great guy - he works hard to give everyone a portal they can use to spruce up their SMF sites and supports it well. His demeanor is above and beyond reproach. But with all of that said, I am fairly comfortable in assuming that if he wanted to provide a CMS level product, he would have (and probably could have) written one from the ground up and not have created something which requires SMF to hold it up.
As I've said several times before - if SMF is good enough for you, then by all means, use it. The price is right and the features are sufficient. But it is definitely not the best option out there, especially if your site needs are beyond the capabilities of SMF. Just because it is enough for you does not mean it is enough for everyone. And, just because it isn't enough for everyone does not mean it is a bad product. If it were, I'd not be using it on a site. If I weren't using it on a site, I'd not be here.
So what is the best option?
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 09:44:46 AM
So what is the best option?
It depends on what you need. For some, it would be SMF. For others, it could be Groupee. For still others, it could be a DMS or CMS.
Then don't make blanket statements.
QuoteAs I've said several times before - if SMF is good enough for you, then by all means, use it. The price is right and the features are sufficient. But it is definitely not the best option out there
I've not been the one making the blanket statements. Actually, you should be the one accused of that. With no supporting information, you repeatedly defended SMF & TP as the best option for someone who said they were thinking about Tiny Portal.
You make the blanket statements which would lead some to believe that, no matter what, SMF is the best option out there. For some, it is completely useless and worthless.
I never made any such blanket statements.
I have said SMF is good, which most people will agree.
I have said that it can stand up to vB and IPB and is comparable in features and speed.
I have said that it is better than phpBB. Well better than phpBB < version 3. Version 3 will likely be much better than it is now.
And TP is nice, but definately not as full CMS. It is a nice simple and easily customisable portal.
I am sorry - I just looked back over the thread and didn't see what I was certain you'd said.
It must be the hour (3:23AM) or the workload (Monday starts early for me - the East Coast is waking up) or all the typing.
My mistake.
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 10:12:07 AMAnd TP is nice, but definately not as full CMS. It is a nice simple and easily customisable portal.
Very true statement.
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 20, 2006, 06:07:17 AMAlthough my comments in this topic are liable to knock points off my karma or whatever it is called. ;)
Was I prophetic here or what? Went from 6 to 2 in less than 4 hours. ;D
Quote from: eldacar on March 20, 2006, 09:44:46 AM
So what is the best option?
Tiny Portal, of course!! :2funny:
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 20, 2006, 09:44:30 AMI admit that some of the added features are desirable from a subjective view. But these are interactive sites. As such, one must take into consideration what your users want and/or need.
Some? Which ones? I'm sure you could get arguments from all kinds of people in all kinds of different niches from such a wide customer base saying that they don't need features that others think are necessary or should be included by default and vice versa.
The simple fact remains that the importance and usability of specific features are subjective. It only takes one person to come out say that they'd never use something, and it no longer means that the feature is some kind of objective necessity to make it "high-end" or "premier".
So, making such broad generalizations about a piece of software being "high-end" and "premier" just by features alone seems like you're trying to give some kind of objectivity to subjective interpretation based on the usability of features, which is purely dependendent upon necessity (and desire, of course).
QuoteNow, with this being said, if you're not interested in the additional features, why look forward to the next version? And why wait for potential additions when those features are available now? If you need them, you certainly cannot wait for them. And, if you need them, shouldn't they be discussed as part of your decision making process?
Just because you like a certain software doesn't mean you're not going to want to see it change and, if you like having more features, be better. Besides, features aren't the only things that change in SMF. A new release doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be more feature-rich.
QuoteThis is what I've been trying to show here - that SMF is not the end-all, do-all of forum software. It is enough for many. It is enough for one of my sites and I am very happy with it there. But it isn't enough for my other sites.
Who ever said it was? As far as I'm aware no one said that, but you seem to going on the assumption that at least one of us believes that.
QuoteThe only other one I've considered it for would require manually editing over 2000 posts - a job which would not be required if I were to switch it to vB (it is IPB). By the same token, if it were a vB site, I could easily convert it to an IPB site - both vB and IPB have the capabilities I need. The only reason I considered SMF for it is to avoid buying another license. Move that license to a new site and replace it with SMF - but it won't work, so I dropped the idea.
Yes, I did mention I don't like vB, but that is because of the Jelsoft attitude. I own 9 vB licenses, so I must not dislike it THAT badly.
That's fine for you, more power to you.
QuoteI do have to agree with a statement Bloc made the other day - SMF is easy to write mods for. This is a testimony for the way the code was written. It works well, for its intended purpose.
This is why I don't think it needs to be loaded with features, by default. And why just having features doesn't make something "high-end" and "premier".
QuoteBloc is a great guy - he works hard to give everyone a portal they can use to spruce up their SMF sites and supports it well. His demeanor is above and beyond reproach. But with all of that said, I am fairly comfortable in assuming that if he wanted to provide a CMS level product, he would have (and probably could have) written one from the ground up and not have created something which requires SMF to hold it up.
I agree, and I don't think anyone really believes TP to be a CMS or that it's headed in the direction of a CMS. But, no one can really say anything, IMO, because firstly, there's a lot of overlap between CMSs and portals and secondly, it's only beta and we don't where Bloc wants to take this. I mean, even though it's a portal, he could easily add features that are more reminscent of a CMS, even if there are only a few of those and they might be very popular CMSy features, so it might popularly be thought of as a CMS. That's a possibility.
QuoteAs I've said several times before - if SMF is good enough for you, then by all means, use it. The price is right and the features are sufficient. But it is definitely not the best option out there, especially if your site needs are beyond the capabilities of SMF. Just because it is enough for you does not mean it is enough for everyone. And, just because it isn't enough for everyone does not mean it is a bad product. If it were, I'd not be using it on a site. If I weren't using it on a site, I'd not be here.
I'm not trying to be rude, and If I can be blunt, here's where your contradicting yourself. Overall, you seem to be saying that whether something is "the best" or it's "high-end" or is otherwise of better quality or has more usability or whatever your criteria is, it all depends upon what the user wansts to use it for. Yet, in this last quote, you specificially say that SMF is "definitely not the best option out there". How can you say that when you've been saying that it all depends upon what the user needs and wants? What makes something "the best" when there are a lot of niches to fill and a very wide user base? You seem to be making a lot of, as eldecar said, blanket statements and trying to make them objectively valid, but the whole foundation of this is that everything just depends upon what the user needs and wants.
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 05:14:22 PMSome? Which ones? I'm sure you could get arguments from all kinds of people in all kinds of different niches from such a wide customer base saying that they don't need features that others think are necessary or should be included by default and vice versa.
The simple fact remains that the importance and usability of specific features are subjective. It only takes one person to come out say that they'd never use something, and it no longer means that the feature is some kind of objective necessity to make it "high-end" or "premier".
No, I am using the same references that the IT and communications industries use in their categorization of the software. In objective message board rating, SMF typically shows up as a 40-50th percentile product - midrange. Personally, I think (I may be wrong here) that for something to be considered high end would mean it should at least pass the halfway point.
But then again, what would industry professionals know? Especially those who administer Internet servers and sell Internet hosting? I mean, what would they know about this stuff, especially compared to the person who might have one or two sites and have invested all of their time on one platform.
There are people just like you - on phpBB boards, IPB boards, vB boards, you name the board and there are those who would die rather than admit their favorite software isn't the do-all end-all of the Internet world.
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 05:14:22 PMA new release doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be more feature-rich.
That's interesting - it has always meant that with software. Are you saying that SMF will be different than every other application which was ever upgraded? And, if not for more features, why upgrade at all? Listening to some, SMF is perfect under the hood - no need to improve. That is, unless it was to become more vB-like?
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 05:14:22 PMWho ever said it was? As far as I'm aware no one said that, but you seem to going on the assumption that at least one of us believes that.
Um, you did. I've already heard from several who claim you're defending SMF and I am tearing it down.
Quote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 05:14:22 PMI agree, and I don't think anyone really believes TP to be a CMS or that it's headed in the direction of a CMS.
Quote from: anunlike on March 19, 2006, 10:25:02 PMIt may not be near Mambo/Joomla in features, but give it time, and it'll probably get up there.
Quote from: technodragon73 on March 20, 2006, 01:28:18 AMI think (like anunlike) that they will become better and more powerful than any other CMS out there.
Wait - who is contradicting themselves? Reread those threee quotes. I see a clear contradiction as put forth by you and technodragon73 capped it. You're contradicting yourself all over this thread, in an apparent attempt to rile me or get the mods to downgrade my reputation further (note to mods - can you make it negative three digits?). I think what everyone needs to do is go back the original thread starter and see where this thing went awry.
To make it simpler, here they are - but please, refresh your memories as to what has happened here and don't simply skim over the writings with a preconceived notion in your mind. Go back and actually READ the previous posts. This thread has had one of my employees here in stitches all morning long. She has the thread printed and has been highlighting it like crazy, to show others.
Quote from: whiteout on March 19, 2006, 09:35:50 PM
Hi, forgive a noob for asking stupid questions, but I am stuck between using Mambo or SMF with TinyPortal. I am currently working on practice sites using both methods. I would prefer to use SMF, but have a few questions. I currently have chat and arcade modules installed on SMF with TinyPortal. I would also like a weblinks directory and a picture gallery with user submitted pics. I know it's possible, but how difficult would it be to stick these things onto my site?
I don't want have a huge amount of time to spend on this, so I'm looking for something that I can just throw on with not much trouble, configure and use. That's why I'm considering Mambo as the "easy" option at the moment.
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 19, 2006, 09:55:06 PM
It really depends on what you need. You can bridge SMF with Joomla/Mambo for a full CMS solution. Or, you could do Tiny Portal with SMF for a simple portal solution.
The two options are different. A portal generally wraps around a single component to dress it up and add some functionality. In the case of SMF & TP, the core is SMF and TP adds to that. With Joomla/Mambo & SMF, the forum becomes a component of an entire site management system.
If your site is primarily a message board, go SMF & TP. If the message board is just a feature of the site, go with Joomla/Mambo and bridge in SMF (or nearly any assortment of message board applications).
Joomla is the new fork of Mambo - I've found it to be an improvement, while the workings are similar. In other words, if you like Mambo, you'll like Joomla. It seems the support and features may be heading the Joomla direction.
SMF & TP is much easier, but it also isn't capable of nearly as many things.
Gee, this all started because I tried to answer a simple question - but how dare I do that? I am not a recognized member of the SMF Illuminati, nor am I a full-time, truth doesn't matter, SMF cheerleader.
Forgive me for having an objective viewpoint on dozens of site platforms. Forgive me because I am not a small time enthusiast - after all, the little guys know far more about these things than do folks who run servers for clients and actually offer high end Internet hosting. Forgive me for knowing more about UNIX/Linux and servers than I do about the SMF brand of php.
Do you know what would be really scary? It would be for a message board creator to actually build features the message board owners want, instead of features they think we should have.
I see Bloc doing that - unfortunately, his work requires one of those message boards to work.
Come on folks - let see more of the vindictiveness and lower my reputation further! After all. the truth hurts, doesn't it?
This argument is a simple one to end. SMF is good at what it does, end of story. I have tried phpBB (takes far to much time to add modifications, slow, full of security holes, comes with next to no features) IPB (loved it, but in my eyes it is way overpriced for what it is) as well as smaller scripts like myBB, XMB etc. As far as free forums go SMF IS THE BEST ONE. Feature wise it is even comparable to IPB, which when you consider the fact that it is free is pretty good going.
Oh and Twinsx2, I am not about to enter into an argument with you, frankly I really can not be bothered to waste my energy. You have firm and fixed ideas that are not going to change, so why should I bother trying to persuade you? You use what you like, and I will use what I like, and I like SMF and recommend it regularly.
Wolfenrook.
First off,
PLEASE do not make this personal. It's not now and never has been personal for me. I'm not attacking you, just discussing and giving divergent opinions of some ideas you put forth.
I did not, and never will, lower your karma simply because you disagree with me and I disagree with you. However, if you make it personal, I'd be much more apt to.
And please do not try to interpret my intentions. Please don't read more into what I say and think that you can be correct in trying to interpret something about me that's not presented here.
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 20, 2006, 05:53:01 PMNo, I am using the same references that the IT and communications industries use in their categorization of the software. In objective message board rating, SMF typically shows up as a 40-50th percentile product - midrange. Personally, I think (I may be wrong here) that for something to be considered high end would mean it should at least pass the halfway point.
But then again, what would industry professionals know? Especially those who administer Internet servers and sell Internet hosting? I mean, what would they know about this stuff, especially compared to the person who might have one or two sites and have invested all of their time on one platform.
Thank you, at least now we can know where you're coming from. If you had said this in the begining, I imagine you wouldn't have gotten slamed as hard as you did about this (as per your karma going down and the things that I and eldacar said).
It sounded as if you were just arbitrarily picking and choosing features to make something seem more "high-end" or "premier". At least we know that there's an objective standard with backing you're trying to go by.
QuoteThere are people just like you - on phpBB boards, IPB boards, vB boards, you name the board and there are those who would die rather than admit their favorite software isn't the do-all end-all of the Internet world.
Calm down, please. Again, do not try to interpret my intentions or anything about me if I didn't clearly state it.
And I never said anything to that affect.
QuoteThat's interesting - it has always meant that with software. Are you saying that SMF will be different than every other application which was ever upgraded? And, if not for more features, why upgrade at all? Listening to some, SMF is perfect under the hood - no need to improve. That is, unless it was to become more vB-like?
1.0.6 came out not too long ago. It contained only bug-fixes and the like, there were no new features. If you mean something different by "release", then we're just playing semantics.
QuoteUm, you did. I've already heard from several who claim you're defending SMF and I am tearing it down.
Just because I'm defending SMF does not mean I believe it to be the end-all of forum software. I like it, I like it better than all the others. But, that's mainly because it fits my needs and wants. If others provide other features, more power to them.
And you wonder why your karma is going down and feel like you're being attacked?
QuoteQuote from: anunlike on March 20, 2006, 05:14:22 PMI agree, and I don't think anyone really believes TP to be a CMS or that it's headed in the direction of a CMS.
Quote from: anunlike on March 19, 2006, 10:25:02 PMIt may not be near Mambo/Joomla in features, but give it time, and it'll probably get up there.
Quote from: technodragon73 on March 20, 2006, 01:28:18 AMI think (like anunlike) that they will become better and more powerful than any other CMS out there.
Wait - who is contradicting themselves? Reread those threee quotes. I see a clear contradiction as put forth by you and technodragon73 capped it. You're contradicting yourself all over this thread, in an apparent attempt to rile me or get the mods to downgrade my reputation further (note to mods - can you make it negative three digits?). I think what everyone needs to do is go back the original thread starter and see where this thing went awry.
To make it simpler, here they are - but please, refresh your memories as to what has happened here and don't simply skim over the writings with a preconceived notion in your mind. Go back and actually READ the previous posts. This thread has had one of my employees here in stitches all morning long. She has the thread printed and has been highlighting it like crazy, to show others.
Firstly, please don't quote someone else and consider it be proof of my intentions or opinions. I'm only going to deal with my quotes.
As I said before, it could easily become CMS-like. It's a portal, but give it time and features could be added that are CMSesque. I know that I don't think of it as a CMS, but I'll probably end up using it in a way that's reminscent of one. But, it's not headed in the direction of a CMS, in that it's developed specifically to be a CMS or, as you said, it wouldn't have been developed around a forum. I never meant that it would turn into a CMS, just that more features will be added. At the very least, it's only in beta, so there's really not a whole lot that can be said right now.
QuoteGee, this all started because I tried to answer a simple question - but how dare I do that? I am not a recognized member of the SMF Illuminati, nor am I a full-time, truth doesn't matter, SMF cheerleader.
Huh? What?
QuoteThis thread has had one of my employees here in stitches all morning long. She has the thread printed and has been highlighting it like crazy, to show others.
QuoteCome on folks - let see more of the vindictiveness and lower my reputation further! After all. the truth hurts, doesn't it?
I'll ask it again, you wonder why your karma has gone down and feel like you're being attacked?
QuoteForgive me for having an objective viewpoint on dozens of site platforms. Forgive me because I am not a small time enthusiast - after all, the little guys know far more about these things than do folks who run servers for clients and actually offer high end Internet hosting. Forgive me for knowing more about UNIX/Linux and servers than I do about the SMF brand of php.
Personally, I think you make very good points and given your seeming experience, I'm very willing to listen to what you have to say and it carries weight. But, you're taking this way too personally. Please calm down and we can debate and discuss at a normal healthy adult level. There's no need to resort to snide remarks and running off telling your co-workers about this and reporting back on how funny they thought it was. You seem to be more invested than others (including myself) are in your opinion, your "tearing-down" of SMF and TP. That's probably why people have reacted so negatively to it, not because "the truth hurts". If you had been more civil, you may not have gotten the reactions you did. If we can calm down, things could continue in a normal healthy adult level.
Quote from: Wolfenrook on March 20, 2006, 06:23:41 PMYou use what you like, and I will use what I like, and I like SMF and recommend it regularly.
As do I - but not blindly, and not for every application, nor for every need.
This thread reads like a war zone script.
Calm down people.
This reply is directed toward anunlike's last post - I am just too tired and busy to do a bit by bit quote of it. Hopefully, it won't be too difficult to follow. :)
I did not intend to make it personal. But I posted what I thought was a decent overview of both options the topic starter was asking about, without making any assumptions. He asked TP or Mambo, without any additional information. From there, I was made to defend each and every word. Also, with that first post, I noticed my 'karma' dropped from 6 to 5 to 4. This morning, it went to 2, then as low as -18.
As far as the 'karma' issue goes, I place zero credibility in the feature. First, the word and the concept is derived from Hinduism and is considered occultic by Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims and others. Second, the way the numbers are doled out are purely subjective and by chance. If all members are allowed to add or subtract from someon's ratings, it becomes a popularity contest. If only the board staff are allowed to change it, it becomes solely an indicator of how well one agrees with (or brown-noses) the staff. My call to take my 'karma' to a huge negative number was a challenge to show just how subjective the number is. I honestly couldn't care less what my 'karma' number is, because it is arbitrary and actually a bit juvenile. What happened to mine overnight proves how juvenile it really is.
I really try to go out of my way to be objective. However, it is cumulative knowledge - for me to post every single reference and every single source would take days, not to mention a lot of scanning. Know this much - while I am not an SMF 'expert', I could be considered one for phpBB, IPB, vB, UBB and a few others. I've actually contributed some writings on various platforms in Wikipedia. I manage three dedicated servers for site specific functions and run/manage an Internet host, too. I can run in UNIX as well as Windows. Message boards are not a hobby for me. They are a component offering of my business. As such, I must remain objective.
And no, I am not here to sell any hosting packages, nor do I need any inquiries. We are currently running at 114% capacity, because our services are high value, top-tier custom offerings. Our clients come by word of mouth and several consultants and we do not sell to the public at large.
Suffice it to say that I probably know a bit about the world we know as the Internet. I've been running computers and networks since 1979 - or before many here were born.
My apologies for lumping you in with those on other platforms - but it is true that there are those who will defend (insert any software program here) without anything other than the developer's word and will recommend it without regard for need or application. I felt that is what I was dealing with here.
In software version numbering, when viewing 1.2.3, the 1 indicates the version number. The 2 indicates major updates to the version in features or major security issues. The 3 indicates a minor update, and is usually a bug fix. Therefore, the difference between v1.2.3 and 1.2.4 is only a minor bug fix. The difference between 1.1.6 and 1.2.0 could include an additional feature. The difference between 1.2.0 and 2.0.0 is supposed to be a complete core rewrite.
I will say it again - my 'karma' numbers are of no concern to me other than showing how ambiguous and arbitrary they are. If I don't agree with someone with rating authority, my numbers go down. If I brown-nose them, the numbers go up. For those who live and die by these numbers, they serve as a form of censorship.
I might not sound as if it were personal if more would stop the arbitrary comments without taking the time to understand the points presented. The points were not intended to be an emotional focus, nor were they intended to make anyone think that they were stupid for using SMF & TP - I use SMF & TP, too and am a TP cheerleader. The intention was for an objective analysis, based on two very general possible needs, since absolute needs and expectations were not expressed.
One cannot make an objective or intelligent recommendation without knowing all the facts. If you don't know all the facts, an objective pro/con summary is called for.
The next time I encounter a request for help and my two choices are: 1) cheerleading for the house product without regard to the needs OR 2) honesty - I believe I will choose option 3 and not assist at all.
Quote from: Paulie on March 20, 2006, 07:42:58 PM
This thread reads like a war zone script.
Calm down people.
So true, Paulie. My apologies that you had to read through it all. Next time, my option will be #3.
QuoteDo you know what would be really scary? It would be for a message board creator to actually build features the message board owners want, instead of features they think we should have.
I don't really see that happening much with any software..
But the SMF team are definately going to find out what users really want for the next version. They are discussing now various ways in which to survey the users, mods and admins of several boards.
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 19, 2006, 09:55:06 PM
It really depends on what you need. You can bridge SMF with Joomla/Mambo for a full CMS solution. Or, you could do Tiny Portal with SMF for a simple portal solution.
The two options are different. A portal generally wraps around a single component to dress it up and add some functionality. In the case of SMF & TP, the core is SMF and TP adds to that. With Joomla/Mambo & SMF, the forum becomes a component of an entire site management system.
If your site is primarily a message board, go SMF & TP. If the message board is just a feature of the site, go with Joomla/Mambo and bridge in SMF (or nearly any assortment of message board applications).
Joomla is the new fork of Mambo - I've found it to be an improvement, while the workings are similar. In other words, if you like Mambo, you'll like Joomla. It seems the support and features may be heading the Joomla direction.
SMF & TP is much easier, but it also isn't capable of nearly as many things.
Man you people are ruthless. I cant see anything wrong with this post and everyone come unglued on the guy. For what? For him speaking truth? I love smf and tp but I am not stupid enough to think it is a cms or a even great bbs. It is one of the best free bbses but it will never be great. Smf is coded with big limits. It took me a bit to read all of this and I had to use three windows to compare what was said and most of you swiched sides more often than a clock pendelum. If you think smf will ever be much more than it is now you need to take your sunglasses off. You also have to cut people slack when they try to answer something nobody when else is smart enuff to even try helping.
Quote from: eldacar on March 21, 2006, 03:46:37 AM
QuoteDo you know what would be really scary? It would be for a message board creator to actually build features the message board owners want, instead of features they think we should have.
I don't really see that happening much with any software..
But the SMF team are definately going to find out what users really want for the next version. They are discussing now various ways in which to survey the users, mods and admins of several boards.
It happens all the time with other sofware. Its the cheap software that doesn't get it. I am always running into thiongs where smf is telling me how to run my site and my server. But vbulletin did that too so I guess they are simlar.
Quote from: (ÃÆ'ââ,¬ÂÂÃ,¿ÃÆ'ââ,¬Â) on March 21, 2006, 09:20:18 AM
Quote from: TwinsX2Dad on March 19, 2006, 09:55:06 PM
It really depends on what you need. You can bridge SMF with Joomla/Mambo for a full CMS solution. Or, you could do Tiny Portal with SMF for a simple portal solution.
The two options are different. A portal generally wraps around a single component to dress it up and add some functionality. In the case of SMF & TP, the core is SMF and TP adds to that. With Joomla/Mambo & SMF, the forum becomes a component of an entire site management system.
If your site is primarily a message board, go SMF & TP. If the message board is just a feature of the site, go with Joomla/Mambo and bridge in SMF (or nearly any assortment of message board applications).
Joomla is the new fork of Mambo - I've found it to be an improvement, while the workings are similar. In other words, if you like Mambo, you'll like Joomla. It seems the support and features may be heading the Joomla direction.
SMF & TP is much easier, but it also isn't capable of nearly as many things.
Man you people are ruthless. I cant see anything wrong with this post and everyone come unglued on the guy. For what? For him speaking truth? I love smf and tp but I am not stupid enough to think it is a cms or a even great bbs. It is one of the best free bbses but it will never be great. Smf is coded with big limits. It took me a bit to read all of this and I had to use three windows to compare what was said and most of you swiched sides more often than a clock pendelum. If you think smf will ever be much more than it is now you need to take your sunglasses off. You also have to cut people slack when they try to answer something nobody when else is smart enuff to even try helping.
Am I blind? Did I read the wrong thread? Show me where everyones post came unglued. You come here and start crap immediately. You have no idea what is going on here, so please do not speak on things you no nothing about. This thread has been pretty civilized for the most part. A few misunderstandings and personal attacks, but everything seemed to resolve itself. It seems you are here just to stir the pot. If you don't have something of worth to contribute to the thread other than to point fingers, you are not welcome to post.
You call it truth... Quality is like truth, which is a complex variable that has multiple dimensions. Twins has a lot of great points. A lot of it is opinion. His opinion is based on his experience. Our opinion is based on our experiences. Who is right? It doesn't matter. What matters is that we come to an agreement to disagree before we start the personal attacks. You however, come on this site and immediately start laying blame everywhere. Chill out, relax and have a cup of tea as G6 so eloquently put it.
On a sidenote:
Twins, you know I respect you and your opinion. I also appreciate your contribution. With that said, here's a few things I have as a suggestion for you. You make all these statements (some I agree with, some I dont), and then you make the statement about your karma going down. Why is it that you think this happens? You claim it is because you speak "the truth". I refer you to my truth/quality statement above. Let me just say to you, that we both know there are ways of saying things to people without the risk of offending. In doing so, you don't have to sugar coat it. I ask you to think about the
way you say things.
I'm going to come right out and point the finger. This site was humming along very quietly with no drama until you came around. Now I know what started this, but that doesn't mean you're not at fault here too. Take the day and think about that. I ask that you take a moment and preview your posts and think to yourself, "Can I word this so that I'm not so overbearing?" All of this I ask for sake of the TP community. We have a great thing going here. I'd hate to see it all go down the drain just because a few personalities clash.
Cheers
Brad
By the following, please understand that I'm not trying to start anything else, here. I'm just commenting upon this that I'd like to throw out ...
Just to clarify, I never meant to "attack" anyone for any reason. I feel it's very important for any member to be able to give their opinions on something and it given consideration. I never attack anyone or get too emotional about it or resort to anything petty.
Quote from: IchBinâââ,¬Å¾Ã,¢ on March 21, 2006, 02:57:24 PMOn a sidenote:
Twins, you know I respect you and your opinion. I also appreciate your contribution. With that said, here's a few things I have as a suggestion for you. You make all these statements (some I agree with, some I dont), and then you make the statement about your karma going down. Why is it that you think this happens? You claim it is because you speak "the truth". I refer you to my truth/quality statement above. Let me just say to you, that we both know there are ways of saying things to people without the risk of offending. In doing so, you don't have to sugar coat it. I ask you to think about the way you say things.
I'm going to come right out and point the finger. This site was humming along very quietly with no drama until you came around. Now I know what started this, but that doesn't mean you're not at fault here too. Take the day and think about that. I ask that you take a moment and preview your posts and think to yourself, "Can I word this so that I'm not so overbearing?" All of this I ask for sake of the TP community. We have a great thing going here. I'd hate to see it all go down the drain just because a few personalities clash.
Cheers
Brad
That's one thing I felt was a big part of the "negativity" of this topic. I can respect where TwinsX2Dad is coming from and I readily respect his experience, but when you seem to present something as if it's truth and then claim that others can't handle "the truth" when it's your opinion, that's not going to create a situation in which people will respect you.
It would've been prudent to know your experience in the first place, as well. It seemed as if we should just know that you were somehow knowledgeable about things related to this. Even if you are, you have to realize that because something is your opinion or your perception, even if it's based on experience, it can still be wrong.
Please do realize that much of what you said and claimed as being fact, can still be interpreted as opinion.
It's never good to attack other posters or say "my employees found this to be funny".
I'll drop this now, as I don't want to keep it going, I'm just trying to present my opinion and, perhaps, help for future reference.
This should be locked.
I think this is debated enough now. Lets hope the original poster got something out of it.
Locked.