 | | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
"Jan-Albert van Ree" <javanree@vanree.net> wrote in message news:IJxyIx.3EM@lugnet.com... (...) True, but the web based interface is so much nicer. Also see my response to your next point. (...) Because a GUI makes it much easier to communicate (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) Nice != Useful (...) I don't WANT pictures, unless I explicitly click on them to be opened. And with me probably a lot of others. Some of us are sometimes still on dial-up you know.... (in the field, on holiday, or just no affordable broadband (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) Ummmmmm well that's not really fair - phpBB has had 6 updates over the 6 months I've been running it, and only 2 were for major security issues. And most of the exploits are because the site didn't keep up-to-date with the latest updates, or (...) (19 years ago, 25-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) Nicer in what way? The web interface has to work hard to provide the same information-at-a-glance that Free Agent does. (...) Who ever said that an NNTP client has to be text-only? (hey, anyone know of one that isn't?) It'd be really cool to (...) (19 years ago, 25-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) The web interface is bandwidth-heavy and it hasn't much memory of _my_ actions. (...) Gnus isn't strictly text-only. Neither is Mozilla. Pine is text-only. (...) Are you in the mood to study how to add new modes to Emacs? Or do you think it is (...) (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) I haven't looked at XUL writing, but I think it shouldn't be too hard for the java gurus. If I was going to write it, I'd probably try the Emacs way, with some lisp hackery. Or, better yet, write an NNTP proxy that will do the translation on (...) (19 years ago, 28-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) But which format would you translate it to? Wouldn't you have to translate the FTX articles to HTML to get the inlined images? And wouldn't that limit the practical number of NNTP clients slightly? - But of course not as much as implementing (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) I think if we have a proxy that understands FTX and can translate it, the output format shouldn't be set - have that part be pluggable, so you could have it output html, or plain text, or anything else we can think of. Just have the proxy (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) Sensible. (...) Why not associate the format with the user account? NNTP actually has authentication built in. It's just not very common to use it. With some accounts named "<format>reader", we can let people select the format they get the FTX (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) Looking at the phpBB website all 6 had security fixes, although not all "critical" (...) If nothing happens within those 6 months... phpBB just has a very bad track record with regard to their code quality, compared to infoPoP, vBulletin and (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Dear NNTP users,
|
|
(...) A quick scan through the vbulletin boards reveals 5 releases in the same time frame, all of which had security issues, one marked critical. I think that's comparable to phpBB's record, don't you? But we should not be discussing the relative (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) Okay, this looks like a good spot for me to ask: "Would you guys like a newsgroup for discussion of LUGNET's development?" I've gotten a few offers now for coding help. Yeaaa!! I'll be honest: From behind the scenes, it's looking more and more (...) (19 years ago, 31-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) It might make sense, but it seems to work fine to keep the discussion here. I suppose it depends a bit on how formal/practical you want us to be. Since I haven't got much time for helping with the coding, I would feel (a little bit) bad about (...) (19 years ago, 31-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) --SNIP-- I can't remember if I already volunteered to help but if not, I do now. Tim (19 years ago, 31-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) Suz, Advice is as good as you pay for. Since my pearls of wisdom are super cheap, take it with a grain of salt. :) Re: And we don't have project leadership or any other team structure my advice/comments are thus: do you !!~REALLY~!! need such (...) (19 years ago, 31-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) Mr. Magno, Don't even think about leading my perfectly optimistic conversation off-track! :-) -Suz (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) I agree! But I would also add, I think this project needs at least some kind of coherent plan as to what exactly is needed before it can make any useful headway. Coders are fine for trying out stuff, and coding the final requirements, but (...) (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
--SNIP-- (...) IMHO the best option would be to have the team led (in the very loosest of terms) by someone with a user design background (or failing that level of expertise, and sort of design). The number of technically savvy but ugly and (...) (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) Oooo! Me! Me! [shouting and waving] ;-) -Suz (19 years ago, 1-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) Anyone.... Anyone... (else) Bueller??? Bueller??? (smile) (19 years ago, 2-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev? [Was: Dear NNTP users]
|
|
(...) lol. yeah, well, I -do- miss that job, ya know? I haven't gotten to see any real improvements since years ago. back when LUGNET was fun. Hmm ..trying to remember what the last thing was. I guess it was the adding of the 'active threads in..' (...) (19 years ago, 2-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev?
|
|
(...) I will not claim that what you write is not true (because it probably is), but if we're talking voluntary work, you shouldn't expect coders to code things they can't see the point with. It is fine with somebody trying to give orders, but don't (...) (19 years ago, 2-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: admin.dev?
|
|
(...) yeah. To be honest, this sort of stuff should be left to think about after the change in ownership. I mean, it's great to think and talk anytime - I just mean that, because there's no urgency, we needen't stress about it right now. -Suz (19 years ago, 3-Aug-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
