10 Sep, 2006, Davion wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Justice said:
Care to share your plans with us?


Sure! Right now, plans for V3 are already in the works, but probably wont be brought live for a little bit. There's several enhancements we want done to the site for the 3rd edition of MudBytes to come into fruition. The Articles section seems to be leaning towards a Wiki (I've actually been working with MediaWiki for the last few days to see if it fits our purpose) and so far it's looking up. The Wiki software is very flexible, but sometimes confusing :). If seamless integration can't be accomplished with this site, it will be dropped. But I have high hopes!

Edit: Split the topic because this had nothing to do with a Rom code tutorial. – Samson
10 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
You guys should drop QSF portal and use Mkportal. Its about a billion times nicer.

EDIT: As in: Forums, Chat, Shoutbox, Download, Reviews, Published Articles, User Profiles, Personal Blogs and Announcements. I've even modded mine to work with an Arcade module.

A mud I'm working on has an mkportal I set up for it at www.freespeechwiki.com/mud

I love it.
11 Sep, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
That sounds like a bunch of stuff we don't need. :P
11 Sep, 2006, Brinson wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
You can disable any of it. The script looks nicer than QSF portal though and article publishing would be very easy.
11 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
You guys should drop QSF portal and use Mkportal. Its about a billion times nicer.

EDIT: As in: Forums, Chat, Shoutbox, Download, Reviews, Published Articles, User Profiles, Personal Blogs and Announcements. I've even modded mine to work with an Arcade module.

A mud I'm working on has an mkportal I set up for it at www.freespeechwiki.com/mud

I love it.


Regardless of what it may seem like, QSF Portal is plenty easy enough to work with. Anything we would need for this site would require modules from whichever portal system we chose. We don't need a shoutbox, personal blogs, or chat.

We have a forums module. Quicksilver Forums works just fine and IMO is better than phpbb or anything remotely similar to it. We don't need something stupidly overcomplicated like IPB or VB. We have a downloads module. Granted, we wrote it ourselves, but it works.

Published articles would probably be the only "stock" module we'd want from some other package, and what would the point in switching just for that be now?

There are no mudlist modules in anything out there right now. Long live custom code. Seamlessly integrated to. Who could ask for more?

I don't mean to come off rude or asshatish or something but there's already a boatload of work invested in what we have now and I for one see no point in abandoning it all for someone else's vision of how a portal should be done.
11 Sep, 2006, Asylumius wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
I'll second what Samson said. QSF has been very easy to modify and adapt to our needs. It's a lot easier to take a stable, secure forum system (like this) and add the one or two (at the time, at least) modules we needed than take a fully featured, well actually, overly featured web portal system and either trim it down or just ignore 75% of it's functionality.

I wouldn't disagree that right now, there are some small negatives, both in the layout and functionality with our system, but that's unavoidable when you have to write so much of the code yourself, especially in the amount of time we took. When Mudbytes was being born, we really didn't need a web portal system, because we didn't need or want any of it's features. Besides a download system, which we would have had to do some serious hacking to anyway, QSF brought to the table everything any other web portal system could have, and it's held up great.

I've used a few open source PHP portal systems and template systems in past projects (and current ones) and they're great, but in the case of Mudbytes, I think we make the right choice.

EDIT: Damn, I didn't realize I (we?) had taken this thread so off topic. Sorry.
11 Sep, 2006, kiasyn wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
You guys should drop QSF portal and use Mkportal. Its about a billion times nicer.

EDIT: As in: Forums, Chat, Shoutbox, Download, Reviews, Published Articles, User Profiles, Personal Blogs and Announcements. I've even modded mine to work with an Arcade module.

A mud I'm working on has an mkportal I set up for it at www.freespeechwiki.com/mud

I love it.

ahahahaha… ha
11 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
You oughtta scrap everything and rewrite it in Ruby because PHP suxxors.

j/k
11 Sep, 2006, Davion wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
You oughtta scrap everything and rewrite it in Ruby because PHP suxxors.

j/k


As joking as you are, if I had the option not to use PHP, I'd probably take it ;). I don't particularly like PHP. I do however, very much enjoy python :). The only thing was, we needed one language that all 3 of us knew well enough to start a project, and other than C/C++, PHP was top of the list. So, unfortunately, we're stuck with it ;).

Also! What do you guys think of the wiki idea for articles? I've read no yae/nae's for it. Also, if you have ideas for ways to integrate the wiki into this site, throw them up. I'll read and consider all of them :).
11 Sep, 2006, Tyche wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Also! What do you guys think of the wiki idea for articles?


Is this what you mean?
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/What...
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/Wiki...

Or something perverse?
11 Sep, 2006, Davion wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Nope. Fully functioning WIki. Nothing perverse ;). You'll be able to edit any and every page on the section. I don't think it'll have a Main_Page, it'll instead just link you directly to a alphabetical list of all the sub categories and articles in the root directory, as it is simply an addition to the site, not it's own site itself. No need to break continuity. The way I think about it, having one article by one person with comments isn't nearly as good as having one article written by (hopefully) 20 people. I've recently become a huge fan of wiki's and I've spent most of the weekend making a skin and changing the code of MediaWiki to work for me ;). Don't fear. Still no perverted nazism here ;)
11 Sep, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Perverted Nazis? …I got nothin'.

Oops! …Almost forgot to mention pie in this one.
12 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Brinson said:
You guys should drop QSF portal and use Mkportal. Its about a billion times nicer.


Btw, just for the record, Samson and I did look over and discuss this Mkportal, and it's basically a wrapper for forum software with a few minor addons that we have no use for.. also, the one site you referred us to, Brinson, looks like someone went nuts with a Halloween theme.. no offense.
12 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Nope. Fully functioning WIki. Nothing perverse ;). You'll be able to edit any and every page on the section. I don't think it'll have a Main_Page, it'll instead just link you directly to a alphabetical list of all the sub categories and articles in the root directory, as it is simply an addition to the site, not it's own site itself. No need to break continuity. The way I think about it, having one article by one person with comments isn't nearly as good as having one article written by (hopefully) 20 people. I've recently become a huge fan of wiki's and I've spent most of the weekend making a skin and changing the code of MediaWiki to work for me ;). Don't fear. Still no perverted nazism here ;)


Sounds a little chaotic, but I suppose it could work. I seem to recall being one of those who'd suggested something akin to the articles section to begin with, so I'll cast my official yea ballot, despite my own slight misgivings about the whole section being editable by anyone.
12 Sep, 2006, Guest wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
… despite my own slight misgivings about the whole section being editable by anyone.


Well lets call it an experiment then. If it works out, great. If not, then we try something else along the lines of the much less powerful but still workable solution I had in mind instead. Only time will tell.
12 Sep, 2006, Conner wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Well lets call it an experiment then. If it works out, great. If not, then we try something else along the lines of the much less powerful but still workable solution I had in mind instead. Only time will tell.


Seems more than fair. Can't wait to see what it looks like. :)
0.0/16