Good or Bad?

Started by Feline, 10 years ago

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Feline

*
10 years ago
I wonder me and I think about that...

I see more then 8000 downloads for PortaMx on the Simple Machine Mod section.
But I see less questions here and on the SMF support board.

It's that a good one or a bad one?
Works PortaMx so good or it's so bad, that all tester that remove quickly?

A answer to that would help me for the next doings ...

For now .. I drink a glas of wine to that  ::)

Fel
Many are stubborn in relation to the way, but less in relation to the target.

antechinus

*
#1
10 years ago
Well it seems to be very good once it's installed properly. Obviously this depends on the server details. A lot of people are going to want something that installs without any effort, so if they run into trouble with PortaMx they'll simply go with another portal.

Also since PortaMx is only for SMF 2 there will be a lot less people using it than other portals. I'm betting that most of the SMF 2b4 installations around at the moment are only test sites, which generally get very little use compared to live forums. Less use means less questions.

My opinion is that PortaMx has some great features but it desperately needs a full article/category system. Even Simple Portal has articles (even if it doesn't have very much else at the moment).

I also think the download manager system could be improved. The way Tiny Portal does it is more convenient IMO since it doesn't require a dedicated download board and download threads. You can still have them but you don't need them.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

DirtRider

*
#2
10 years ago
Well from my side I always used TP and got used to the working of it. I installed this one as I needed a portal for my SMF2 board. Now when I first installed it I found the way it worked a bit confusing. If TP was available I would most likely have dropped it because of this. Once I started scratching and finding out how things come together I was very impressed. So maybe this is where it is falling down people are just not giving it enough time. I am not sure how you would overcome this problem. There are still a few things that I need to look at a bit closer as first off they did not seem to work as I expected them too.

Now what I would like to see in addition is this

1) Shoutbox
2) Top block that is right at the top of the forum running the full width of the forum, just under the menu items. This is especially great for the random gallery images block.
3) The article option
4) The download manager I like the way it works but maybe as above it could be added

I have a few issue with the left block hiding some of the blocks when in other areas. Ok so I still actually need to play a bit more as I am not sure this is a bug or just me. However when you run the change theme block here and try and change a theme while in a post view it gives a handler error and the page crashes.

However overall I really like it and have recommended it on another forum to other forum admins  ;)
"The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. "

codebirth

*
#3
10 years ago
8000 downloads is a BIG number!

I'm agree that the Article / Category system is very needed.

Also the problems to install the PortaMx package in servers running PHP as a module instead of a CGI can make many people to give up and go with other portal  :-\

Once installed is the BEST portal, though :)

c o d e b i r t h
http://codebirth.com/smf

antechinus

*
#4
10 years ago
Quote from: DirtRider, 10 years ago
Well from my side I always used TP and got used to the working of it. I installed this one as I needed a portal for my SMF2 board. Now when I first installed it I found the way it worked a bit confusing. If TP was available I would most likely have dropped it because of this. Once I started scratching and finding out how things come together I was very impressed. So maybe this is where it is falling down people are just not giving it enough time. I am not sure how you would overcome this problem. There are still a few things that I need to look at a bit closer as first off they did not seem to work as I expected them too.


I'm much the same with respect to TP. I've used it for a year now and find it great. Totally love the functionality of it and personally I think it's very easy to administrate. I can't understand why some people claim that it's too complicated. I particularly can't understand why some of the Simple Portal team say it's too complicated for them to administrate. Hell, surely if you're capable of developing your own portal administrating an existing one will be a piece of cake. Anyway the bottom line is that you only need to use the functions you want. The other functions will just sit there until your decide you need them.

I only looked at PortaMx because I'll be changing to SMF 2 as soon as RC1 is public and Tiny Portal hadn't even looked like starting on SMF 2. As soon as I set PortaMx up on a test site I was sold on it. No problem adapting at all, and I love the way it's put together. It's got style, dammit. All it needs is a couple of extra default functions. Custom blocks are a piece of cake and can be added by people who want them. No need to go overboard on those as default features.

QuoteNow what I would like to see in addition is this

1) Shoutbox
2) Top block that is right at the top of the forum running the full width of the forum, just under the menu items. This is especially great for the random gallery images block.
3) The article option
4) The download manager I like the way it works but maybe as above it could be added


1/ Easy. Drop Neo's code in a php block. Hey presto, instant shoutbox. Tweak to suit your preferred block dimensions and that's it.

2/ Good idea actually. Could be coded individually or made default. I haven't used top blocks on a live site because we've been running TP 0.983 so I haven't played around with them. Haven't bothered with TPv1.0. Couldn't see much advantage in it. News fader and side blocks are enough for me most of the time. Also I don't want a gallery displaying by default because of load times, particularly for members on slower connections.

3/  and 4/ Well, you know my opinion on those.  ;)


QuoteI have a few issue with the left block hiding some of the blocks when in other areas. Ok so I still actually need to play a bit more as I am not sure this is a bug or just me. However when you run the change theme block here and try and change a theme while in a post view it gives a handler error and the page crashes.


Works fine for me. No problems at all.

QuoteHowever overall I really like it and have recommended it on another forum to other forum admins  ;)


Same.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

antechinus

*
#5
10 years ago
Quote from: codebirth, 10 years ago8000 downloads is a BIG number!

I'm agree that the Article / Category system is very needed.

Also the problems to install the PortaMx package in servers running PHP as a module instead of a CGI can make many people to give up and go with other portal  :-\

Once installed is the BEST portal, though :)


Yes to both of those points. Fel, I don't want to give you a hard time about this but you think like a software developer. The average forum admin does not think like a software developer.

To you the way PortaMx is coded is important. The average forum admin couldn't care less, as long as it works. What the average forum admin wants is something that installs with a couple of clicks regardless of what server they're using. I know we have been over this before but the truth is that Tiny Portal will install via the package manager on any server. PortaMx will not. This means that for quite a lot of people upgrades are going to be a nightmare. Most admins are prepared to go to the trouble of a manual installation once, if they can see they will get something good from it.

What will totally kill their enthusiasm is if they have to do that every time there's a new release. I can tell you for a fact that under those circumstances they will switch to another portal that makes their job easier. People are just like that. It's a fact of life. The vast majority of them wont give you any direct feedback on this either. They'll just change and tell their friends to do the same. The end result could well be like the old competition between VHS and Beta videos. The one that went extinct was probably the better format.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

DirtRider

*
#6
10 years ago
Quote from: antechinus, 10 years ago

1/ Easy. Drop Neo's code in a php block. Hey presto, instant shoutbox. Tweak to suit your preferred block dimensions and that's it.


:o Ok where do I find this code, I have looked but maybe I am not looking in the right place  :P   :)
"The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. "

codebirth

*
#7
10 years ago
Quote from: DirtRider, 10 years ago
Quote from: antechinus, 10 years ago

1/ Easy. Drop Neo's code in a php block. Hey presto, instant shoutbox. Tweak to suit your preferred block dimensions and that's it.


:o Ok where do I find this code, I have looked but maybe I am not looking in the right place  :P   :)


The mod is here

http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=585

and the code for the block here

https://www.portamx.com/

I don't know if it works with SMF 2.0 Beta 4 ...

c o d e b i r t h
http://codebirth.com/smf

codebirth

*
#8
10 years ago
Quote from: antechinus, 10 years agoYes to both of those points. Fel, I don't want to give you a hard time about this but you think like a software developer. The average forum admin does not think like a software developer.

To you the way PortaMx is coded is important. The average forum admin couldn't care less, as long as it works. What the average forum admin wants is something that installs with a couple of clicks regardless of what server they're using. I know we have been over this before but the truth is that Tiny Portal will install via the package manager on any server. PortaMx will not. This means that for quite a lot of people upgrades are going to be a nightmare. Most admins are prepared to go to the trouble of a manual installation once, if they can see they will get something good from it.

What will totally kill their enthusiasm is if they have to do that every time there's a new release. I can tell you for a fact that under those circumstances they will switch to another portal that makes their job easier. People are just like that. It's a fact of life. The vast majority of them wont give you any direct feedback on this either. They'll just change and tell their friends to do the same. The end result could well be like the old competition between VHS and Beta videos. The one that went extinct was probably the better format.



I've been working on something to avoid these installation problems on servers with PHP running with a user different of the account owner. I attached the result in the Supporters chat. antechinus could you test it? I would like to know if it worked for you too. Thanks!

c o d e b i r t h
http://codebirth.com/smf

Feline

*
#9
10 years ago
Ok .. I have read all your comments so I can follow say to that;

1. TP vs PortaMx
I have take a look on the install package of TP1.05 .. and I see it's the same as in PortaMx.
The one difference is that TP uses "boardmod" styled and PortaMx XML styled modfiles.
If that the Problem? I think no .. but if it, then is that a problem of SMF.
And .. have anybody TP installed on a SMF 2 system? Works TP's install with the packedmanger of SMF 2?

2. Coding techniques
The code of TP is never that, what I would give out of my office. That provoke errors .. and when I read on TP site, I see that.
Hundred of $_GET, hundred of "if" .. "else" .. no secure checking for $_GET's .. That is a invitation for attacks.
A good code MUST be absolutly clear structured and protected for attacks.
SMF go the right way on this, with the new database functions and mutch more. PortaMx follow these codestructure.
Also SMF implemented a caching technique for languages and more to make the system faster. TP make many queries on the database without I see one block. PortaMx take normaly 2 queries for all the setting and blocks. Of course we need often more queries .. but that is depended on the blocktype. And static blocks like Themes, Download and other have a cache, so it's not need to create the content on each page call.

3. The upgrade cycle
The upgrade cycle is crrently very short .. but that is a temporary.
We stay on a time, who more user test the portal and of course find more bugs.
I think on a better upgrade system ...

4. Categorie/Articles and Download manager
We start the implementation of this parts (first Cat/Article, then the DL-Manager), but I can't say when it's done.
While PortaMx have no Download manager, you can use the Download mod from SMF mod site, it works with PortaMx.

Fel
Many are stubborn in relation to the way, but less in relation to the target.

antechinus

*
#10
10 years ago
Quote from: feline, 10 years ago
Ok .. I have read all your comments so I can follow say to that;

1. TP vs PortaMx
I have take a look on the install package of TP1.05 .. and I see it's the same as in PortaMx.
The one difference is that TP uses "boardmod" styled and PortaMx XML styled modfiles.
If that the Problem? I think no .. but if it, then is that a problem of SMF.
And .. have anybody TP installed on a SMF 2 system? Works TP's install with the packedmanger of SMF 2?


No. I have to admit that my experience with TP is of course only related to SMF 1.1.x. However with 1.1.x it will install with a couple of clicks via the package manager. I have no idea what changes have been made to the package manager in SMF 2.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

antechinus

*
#11
10 years ago
Anyway the relevant point is not whether it is a problem of SMF. The relevant point is can anything be done about it? That's all any site admin is going to care about.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

Feline

*
#12
10 years ago
If the install different on "boardmod" and "xml" style, then it's a problem of SMF.
When I create a package for SMF and follow the rules given by SMF, then the install must work.

I have fixed the SSI bug in my dbinstall/dbremove .. that's my knowhow, my goodwill .. but it's a bug of SMF.

Fel
Many are stubborn in relation to the way, but less in relation to the target.

antechinus

*
#13
10 years ago
Ok I'll try something out for a test. What I'll do is grab Simple Portal and vbGamer's new one (EzyPortal I think it's called) and attempt to install those on my server. If they have the same problem as PortaMx then we can bet Tiny Portal will as well. If they don't then we'll know it's something specific to PortaMx.

I'll knock up an extra database and 2b4 forum in the next day or two and see what happens.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

Feline

*
#14
10 years ago
That is no good compare. SP have only 4, 5 files they copied directly to the source/themes folder.
No extra folder to create. Same I think on EzPortal ...

Fel
Many are stubborn in relation to the way, but less in relation to the target.

antechinus

*
#15
10 years ago
Yes I just checked the SP download and the file is tiny. Only 82kb. EZPortal is only compatible with 1.1.x anyway.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

antechinus

*
#16
10 years ago
Actually I will give the Simple Portal team credit for one thing. The amount of functionality they have managed to add with such a tiny file is impressive. It's still not up to what I require from a portal but for what they were aiming to achieve it's a good effort.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

Feline

*
#17
10 years ago
There's nothing to it  ;)
Sportal have no forum integration, not all the features they PortaMx have ..
Without the WYSIWYG editor, PortaMx is smaller  8) AND fully documented ..

Fel
Many are stubborn in relation to the way, but less in relation to the target.

antechinus

*
#18
10 years ago
Yes I know that. I'm just saying that for anyone who wants anything that basic it's not a bad effort. On the other hand there are a lot of people who install Simple Portal and then uninstall it shortly after, simply because it does not have the functionality they hoped for. I've seen a lot of this around the SMF Community boards and I'll bet that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

antechinus

*
#19
10 years ago
Ctrl +mouse is handy when you want to enable or disable all permissions in one go. Checkboxes would be more tedious here. In fact when I first saw and used Fel's approach I was impressed with it and thought it much better than checkboxes.

As an example, if you are setting up a recent posts block and want it to show posts from all boards to all membergroups then you simply press Ctrl and scroll your mouse down the list of options (thereby highlighting them) then hit Save. It's faster and cleaner than using checkboxes IMO.
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

Feline

*
#20
10 years ago
Select ALL on mutiple selectboxes is very easy.
click the first item, scroll down, hold down shift and click on last item .. Woops .. all selected  ;)

Fel
Many are stubborn in relation to the way, but less in relation to the target.

antechinus

*
#21
10 years ago
I just found an even easier way which is really smooth. Left click on the first item and hold, then drag your cursor to the last item. Release mouse button then click Save.  :) 
Using Internet Explorer 6 on the internet is like urinating in a public swimming pool.
It's rude, there's no excuse for it, and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.

* Shouts

Feline
11 months ago
Today we update our Forum to the Version 1.45
Feline
a year ago
Today we update our Forum to Version 1.4
This release is full compatible with the EU GDPR
Feline
a year ago
Update for PortaMx 1.54 ecl released.
With this updates the Portal works with PHP 7.x and SMF 2.0.15
Feline
a year ago
PortaMx Forum 1.3
released !

*
Feline
a year ago
Today we switched to PHP 7.2 and activate Opcode caching.
Fast .. Very fast *
Feline
2 years ago
Today we upgrade our old SMF 2.0 Forum to PortaMx Forum *

* Calendar

Su
Mo
Tu
We
Th
Fr
Sa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31