phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Do not post support requests, bug reports or feature requests. Discuss phpBB here. Non-phpBB related discussion goes in General Discussion!
Anti-Spam Guide
Locked
ssslippy
Registered User
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:18 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by ssslippy »

Stallyon wrote:
cactus2clouds wrote:I do suspect, however, that if mods and styles could be installed just by blinking an eye, then phpBB would become slightly more popular.
And vB and IPB are this easy? :roll: Ever tried upgrading a moded board?
I have for VB, IPB is like phpbb and requires manuall edits.

Hooks are good and bad. They require more resources to use which is why its considered a bloat. I enjoy having the ability to throw something into a hook and have it appear there. This is what allows for companies like IPB and VB to release their gallery, blog, etc...

The plugin system that vb uses definatelly can cause slow downs as it had to load these calls in on every page call. However I can disable a mod, not uninstall it when I do an upgrade to see if its broken. Its just a simple click. It has a template comparison system that allows me to see what changes have to made to my board and make them.

However I will say hard coding something is better. Its alot better in resource usage. However a solid cache system for plugins can really make the world of difference honestly. Unfortunally VB is currently missing one for its current version.
User avatar
thecoalman
Community Team Member
Community Team Member
Posts: 4114
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:52 am
Location: Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by thecoalman »

Stallyon wrote: Compression levels are THE SAME for Linux compatibility: all legacy 2.0.

I have installed and run all three. My observation was accurate.
I'd still disagree because you're not taking into account the other things I mentioned, the size of a zip file is not indicative of anything . For example recompressing images into a zip file yield practically no benefit at all, text documents compress quite a bit. If the others simply have more images they are going to be larger files.

It was mentioned above VB comes with lot of smilies which is going to increase the file size a lot. That's not bloat IMO because it's not using server resources except for a minimal amount of disk space. When I think of bloated software I think of something that has a lot of uneeded things consuming resources, extras don't fit into that category. If phpbb3 came with whole bunch of smilies and 5 themes the file size would be significantly larger but overall it's still the same package and not consuming anymore or less resources except for some disc space.
“Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results! I have found several thousand things that won’t work.”

Attributed - Thomas Edison
User avatar
Highway of Life
Former Team Member
Posts: 6048
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Name: David Lewis
Contact:

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Highway of Life »

Stallyon,
Any chance you could get stats on the uncompressed packages? :)

ssslippy,
You pretty much hit the nail on the head regarding why phpBB3 is not using the hooks system to the extent vB does. -- The goal of phpBB is to make a very light, yet feature-full software. System Resources and Optimisations are a big priority in phpBB3 and will be even more for 3.2
The phpBB Weekly Podcast - Discussing the developments of phpBB4 and beyond.

New to phpBB3? Want to learn about programing?
Visit phpBB Academy at StarTrekGuide to learn how.
Malphas
Registered User
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:13 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Malphas »

I'm a bit disappointed with phpBB3, but I kind of expected to be. I do think it's massive improvement over 2.0, which was dated to the point of becoming borderline unusable, but I feel phpBB is playing catchup with vBulletin, Invision Power Board and the like, rather than the new version being a step ahead of the competition.

I do like various aspects of phpBB better than the other forum software (not nearly as bloated for one), but if vBulletin were free (as in I didn't have to pay for it, not free as open source) then I'd be using that instead. I'm hoping that after new year we start seeing a lot of new MODs and styles being released that significantly improve the functionality and appearance of 3.0.x in the same way they did for 2.0.x
Magnoliauk
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:03 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Magnoliauk »

It would seem that you cannot please some of the people at all - phpBB is a free forum and I for one am delighted with the functionality and usability of v3! I cannot for the life in me see what other mods would be needed to increase functionality - Just so long as a forum member can post and others can reply then the software is doing its job! And doesn't it do it well! Its fast and slick with all the features the average user can want. It has all the functions that admin can need! Fill it up with bells and whistles and it will start to become slower and more cumbersome and not do it half as well as it does now. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth! :roll:

The only thing I can see missing is a spell checker but ..... that really isn't a problem as I use firefox and that can check my ruddy awful spelling (once I had convinced it that colour has a U in it) Someone is going to have to guide me towards what could possibly make it better cos I for the life in me cannot see it!

I couldn't hard code something if my life depended on it! I can change HTML and fiddle with CSS Oh and even 'look' at PHP *shudder* but all I want is a forum that is usable and phpBB does just that - my members think that v3 is fantastic and love the extra new functions that are available. It works out of the box so why mess with it?

I know I depend of the wonderful Devs to keep me in line with current standards and they have done just that and brilliantly at well!

For all the 'Oh it doesn't do ......' people - what more can a forum do? What more functionality can a board need? There is 'stuff' going on in the background - I call it 'stuff' cos I don't know what it is and how it does it - I just know it is doing it very well!

Maybe I don't get around many BB's to see what other ones do - maybe I am not the net head my friends say I am - maybe I am just not internet savvy at all! All I know is the Devs have my undying gratitude :oops:
User avatar
ChrisRLG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3420
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:18 pm
Location: Essex, UK
Contact:

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by ChrisRLG »

Magnoliauk wrote:What more functionality can a board need?
Well phpBB3 is feature rich - but sometimes a particular board will need an extra feature or two - to make it work for what it is being used for.

Example.

I run a school, as part of that the students do 'course work'. That course work involves them posting answers in a new topic in that course works room.

Now because they have access to that room they can read the other students work - and copy (or cheat).

It does not help them in the long run, but it does not stop some doing it.

Is a MOD in development - "Author View Only" where you can set a room to be author and teacher (moderators) view, that would work great for that situation. I would have my students posting topics without seeing the posts by their fellows.

As it is now, unless I create one room for each student that facility is not available.

===

So each MOD is in answer to a specific need, which is non-standard in some way, something that a particular board needs which most others do not.

What differs is that a lot of people would like to see a lot of the 'extras' that would not be used by most people, as standard in the main package so they do not have to modify the system for their own boards.
phpBB: The All Important Rules - Bertie Bear 3.0 - No support via PM system - use the forums please.
phpBB v2: Retirement (1/1/2009) : phpBB v3: Read Me Topic - Custom BBCodes - Support Template
Matthew 7:7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and a door will be opened to you."
My Links: MS MVP (Consumer Security) - Malware Removal:University - Own Forum: Custom BBCode testing
Magnoliauk
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:03 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Magnoliauk »

I understand what you are saying Chris but your requirements are not the run of the mill and as you rightly say - that should be a mod - my question is about what could be added to v3 that would be of use to all users? I am at a loss to think of anything that would enhance the majority users experience.

V3 for the most is the full package - yes there is always going to be the ones who are doing specifics such as yourself but surely no one expects that function to be the 'norm'

I honestly have'nt had the need to install any mods (apart from a spam blocker) and now v3 has much better security I dont seem to have the need to install any now. I have read the list of mods and tried to come up with something that my users would find interesting or would enhance the user experience but I cannot find anything.
User avatar
ChrisRLG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3420
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 3:18 pm
Location: Essex, UK
Contact:

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by ChrisRLG »

Magnoliauk wrote:V3 for the most is the full package - yes there is always going to be the ones who are doing specifics such as yourself but surely no one expects that function to be the 'norm'
I of course know that is a non-standard requirement.

The point is lots of people do expect, that what they consider to be important, to be important enough that everyone should believe they are important, and therefor needing to be included in the base package.

Most people do not believe that THEIR requirements are non standard.
phpBB: The All Important Rules - Bertie Bear 3.0 - No support via PM system - use the forums please.
phpBB v2: Retirement (1/1/2009) : phpBB v3: Read Me Topic - Custom BBCodes - Support Template
Matthew 7:7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and a door will be opened to you."
My Links: MS MVP (Consumer Security) - Malware Removal:University - Own Forum: Custom BBCode testing
Magnoliauk
Registered User
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:03 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Magnoliauk »

Of course I wasn't suggesting that you thought your requirements should be the norm - but just how many who need that function does it take to make it part of the standard package?

My wording of that quote was diabolical and I am sorry if it came out wrong :oops:
Malphas
Registered User
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:13 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Malphas »

I think a lot of [what I would consider to be anyway] faults with phpBB could be avoided by having some officialy supported MODS. I think PunBB is going this route. One of the biggest problems with MODS is not just having to manually install them, but usually being unable to test them out prior to installation, and being unsure of the quality. Taking the most common installed MODs and subjecting them to some sort of verification and QA procedure would alleviate this.
Magnoliauk wrote:Of course I wasn't suggesting that you thought your requirements should be the norm - but just how many who need that function does it take to make it part of the standard package?

My wording of that quote was diabolical and I am sorry if it came out wrong :oops:
It's personal opinion ultimately, but I do think there phpBB 3.0 is still missing a few quite fundamental features whilst including ones which are almost frivolous.
Last edited by Malphas on Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paul
Infrastructure Team Leader
Infrastructure Team Leader
Posts: 26845
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:44 pm
Location: The netherlands.
Name: Paul Sohier
Contact:

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Paul »

Malphas wrote:I think a lot of [what I would consider to be anyway] faults with phpBB could be avoided by having some officialy supported MODS. I think PunBB is going this route. One of the biggest problems with MODS is not just having to manually install them, but usually being unable to test them out prior to installation, and being unsure of the quality. Taking the most common installed MODs and subjecting them to some sort of verification and QA procedure would alleviate this.
All MODs in the MODSDB has been tested, checked for security issues and for bugs by the MOD team, so what you say do we have actually already for a long time ;).
Knock knock
Race condition
Who's there?

My BlogMy Photosmy phpBB Extensionscustom phpBB work & Development
Malphas
Registered User
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:13 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Malphas »

Paul wrote:
Malphas wrote:I think a lot of [what I would consider to be anyway] faults with phpBB could be avoided by having some officialy supported MODS. I think PunBB is going this route. One of the biggest problems with MODS is not just having to manually install them, but usually being unable to test them out prior to installation, and being unsure of the quality. Taking the most common installed MODs and subjecting them to some sort of verification and QA procedure would alleviate this.
All MODs in the MODSDB has been tested, checked for security issues and for bugs by the MOD team, so what you say do we have actually already for a long time ;).
But are they checked to be compatible with each other, and other styles, etc.? Also, I recall installing a few MODs for 2.0 from the database about six months ago which causes my forum to fail WC3 verification.
User avatar
Erik Frèrejean
Former Team Member
Posts: 9899
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:09 am
Location: The Netherlands, 3.0.x Support Forum
Name: Erik Frèrejean
Contact:

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Erik Frèrejean »

Well check all mods for compatibility with each other, and all the styles is just impossible. For example the 2.0 MODDB, there are over 600 mods submitted, it is just impossible that they will all work together no matter how good your hooking system or mod validation is.
I know there are not that many mods for 3.0 yet, but they will come.
Support Toolkit | Support Request Template | Knowledge Base | phpBB 3.0.x documentation
I don't give support via PM or IM! (all unsolicited pms will be trashed!)
Malphas
Registered User
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 7:13 pm

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Malphas »

Erik Frèrejean wrote:Well check all mods for compatibility with each other, and all the styles is just impossible. For example the 2.0 MODDB, there are over 600 mods submitted, it is just impossible that they will all work together no matter how good your hooking system or mod validation is.
I know there are not that many mods for 3.0 yet, but they will come.
Yup, that's why I specifically mentioned it being a core set of the most used MODs. Simply checking an individual MOD is bug free when installed in a clean board is next to useless if you're using a different style and installing multiple MODs really. I mean, it's still a good thing of course, but that's not what I meant by my previous post suggesting the idea of an "officially supported" set of common modifications.
User avatar
Highway of Life
Former Team Member
Posts: 6048
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Name: David Lewis
Contact:

Re: phpBB3 - Im disapointed....

Post by Highway of Life »

Malphas wrote:I think a lot of [what I would consider to be anyway] faults with phpBB could be avoided by having some officialy supported MODS. I think PunBB is going this route. One of the biggest problems with MODS is not just having to manually install them, but usually being unable to test them out prior to installation, and being unsure of the quality. Taking the most common installed MODs and subjecting them to some sort of verification and QA procedure would alleviate this.
As Paul pointed out, and I’ll reiterate, MODs released in the MOD Database go through a line-by-line validation process before being released, call it verification and QA procedure, that’s basically what it is. :)
Malphas wrote:It's personal opinion ultimately, but I do think there phpBB 3.0 is still missing a few quite fundamental features whilst including ones which are almost frivolous.
Okay, step back for a moment and take a look at this quote... it’s what was discussed just two posts before. What you consider to be fundamental features others might consider to be frivolous features, and what you consider to be frivolous features others might consider to be fundamental features.
I know you said personal opinion, but it sounds really silly. ;) ... think about this: 5 years ago, most of these features were not considered fundamental, but now, 5 years later, all the sudden they are fundamental. Has the internet really changed that much?
Malphas wrote:But are they checked to be compatible with each other, and other styles, etc.? Also, I recall installing a few MODs for 2.0 from the database about six months ago which causes my forum to fail WC3 verification.
It’s impossible to test for every single circumstance. That said, all MODs are tested on the default theme (prosilver) and most MODs include both prosilver and subSilver2 styles.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE to test MODs on every custom style and every other custom MOD. If we even tried, not a single MOD would be approved to the MOD Database after about the first 25-50 MODs were approved.
To consider this is just short-sighted. -- Hundreds of MODs are submitted to the MOD Database, only a few make it through at a time because of the approval process they go through.
The standards are much higher and a lot different with 3.0 as well... in 3.0, the way the core was built means that more MODs can take advantage of the functions that have been put in place so that they don’t conflict with other MODs. We also work with MOD Authors on better coding practices that decrease the chance that conflicts will happen. But we would be utterly stupid to think we would be able to consider every situation.
All MODs go through an XHTML validation as well, for prosilver, they must be XHTML 1.0 strict valid and for subsilver2 they must be XHTML 1.0 Transitional.
Malphas wrote:Yup, that's why I specifically mentioned it being a core set of the most used MODs. Simply checking an individual MOD is bug free when installed in a clean board is next to useless if you're using a different style and installing multiple MODs really. I mean, it's still a good thing of course, but that's not what I meant by my previous post suggesting the idea of an "officially supported" set of common modifications.
And then every person will want their own MOD included in the package, this is not any better of a solution. We already addressed earlier why even *popular* MODs are best left OUT of the core. -- see the last few pages of this topic to see extended explanations why, so I don’t have to repeat myself. :) --
There are a set of "officially supported" MODs, and those are the MODs released in the MOD Database. :)
The phpBB Weekly Podcast - Discussing the developments of phpBB4 and beyond.

New to phpBB3? Want to learn about programing?
Visit phpBB Academy at StarTrekGuide to learn how.
Locked

Return to “phpBB Discussion”