Talk:Comparison of Internet forum software: Difference between revisions

I think this is interesting information, but do comparisons of this nature fit into an encyclopedia? Is there a precedent for articles like this? Just wondering. --Stevietheman 21:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is - see Comparison of web browsers, Comparison of instant messengers, Comparison of operating systems, Comparison of media players and Comparison of file systems (to name a few software-related comparisons). Talrias 23:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Stevietheman 23:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The link to James Atkinson, creator of phpBB, links to a page about an other person named James Atkinson (created the combustion engine in the 19th century). --PC_Freak 15:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a wiki, be bold in updating pages! I've made a disambiguation page. Talrias 16:31, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I moved quite a few ones over from List of Forum Software. All the ones without any information came with a link to the supposed home page. To keep the page from being overgrown with `?'s I only did the first section. If no one knows anything about the software feel free to delete it after a while, most of them don't even have wiki articles. :\. So I hvae no problem with deletion of most of them, though with the links someone should be able to find the information, I just don't have much more time to put into this today. I tried not to repeat, but I may have. I I knew more information about them I put them in the lower sections as well(none went into the middle, but about 3 went into the lowest block). On the lower values they may support more databases, but I only had information I took from List of forum software. --Capi crimm 21:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that if a forum software still has all ?'s by the 4th October 2005 (one month after your comment) that they be pruned from the table? NeoThermic 22:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep them as it is (even if it has all ?s). Since if someone passes by and know the information about that particular forum, it will update it. If we remove it completely, it reduces a chance for somone to fill in these blanks. Also if you remove them, it will remove their home pages too. Thanks for your appreciation! Someone 17:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with NeoThermic on the date. I'm going to delete any forum software from this page that has full ?'s across the board. I actually am for deleting software without a wiki-page as well, since the software doesn't even have a big enough community to make one I don't think it's big enough to be common forum software. On the side, I provided the links so people with knowledge don't have to randomly stumble upon this page, but rather you can actively get the information. I strongly suggest you do that if you want to list to stay as large as it is now.--Capi crimm 22:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared out the ones with full question marks. There are still a few that only have a couple of question marks. Some of them could probably be deleted outright; I think it would be better to ask their community to fill in the information by said time or delete them. Thats too much work for me, though.

I found that this page looks a bit messy - some boards are there in the first table but not the second, etc, and the first table is not very informative, so I put up a clean up tag.

I agree with all your points, except that the first table is not informative. I think it has the potential to be so if every row had a link to the software's homepage and a few of the useless columns (like current stable version and first public release date) were removed. Does anybody have a problem with me doing this? I have now made it so that each table has all the same rows. - Rob.daemon 19:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First public release date might be fair game, but I would say that current stable is informative. I also think that rather than '?' for unknown items, it should literly have the word 'Unknown' there.

If nobody contests to removing "first public release date" in the next few days, I'll go ahead and remove it. As for the "current stable," see my message below regarding the last updated status. I think that the goal would be to have no ?s in the table at all; and as such, I'm currently going through and reading the websites (downloading the software if necessary) to find out some of the answers. Rob.daemon 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, in the 'Data Storages' section, are we reffering to what storages the software can use, even with modification, or are we reffering to data storages the software can use out of the box, without adding anything? NeoThermic 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no if it requires modifications, to follow suit with the feature list. However would this exclude IPB? Rob.daemon 21:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be why I asked. If you have to pay extra to obtain the data storage, isn't that nearly the same as requiring a modification to use a diffrent DBMS? NeoThermic 15:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any forum could potentially support any data storage, which would make the entire table pointless if we decided that it could be yes with modification. The difference with IPB is that (I presume) it is officially supported by the company. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be three values, I'd say: "Yes," "No," and "Yes, with external module and minimal configuration." This would allow things like phpBB and IPB to still retain the "Yes" value but because some are not included by default, it would indicate that. Rob.daemon 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the S.I. unit for "minimal"? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 08:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not overly sure what minimal means for IBP, but if you want to enable Oracle support in phpBB (or any other DBAL layer that isn't included by default), you only have to drop in a new instal.php, schema file, and dbal layer, then do a normal install. NeoThermic 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add a section for "last updated on" as some projects here are outdated and the development is either slow or non-existing. what do you think?

Either that or a "project status" column; where there could be Stable, Beta, No Future Development, and In Development (with like "Updated in the Past X Months"); that way we could also remove the latest stable version (as it's kind of a pain to update for some of these every time a new release comes out) Rob.daemon 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure. The 'latest stable version' column is handy enough for general information. If it would be a better compromise, how about the project status having the stable, beta, feature locked, and in development, with a latest (stable) version? NeoThermic 15:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, but what would "feature locked" entail? Rob.daemon 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feature locked is what phpBB 2.0.x is actualy in, where no new features are added unless they relate to secuirty features. NeoThermic 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my progress, I've noticed that there appears to be no way to download CMFBoard, NetHawk, or TuvaiBoard; can I go ahead and remove these from the table? I've tried to find them on Google, but it's just forums running the software (which I can't find any place to download). Rob.daemon 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found Tuvai, but I can't find NetHawk. I've also found CMFBoard on SF.net: http://sourceforge.net/projects/collective/ ... it's a sub-project of that. Rob.daemon 05:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TuvaiBB has stopped distribution starting 12-30-05, although I'm not sure if 1.5 (the last released version) is still being distributed? 68.104.71.158 09:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what is a flat forum? Or; maybe add a small definition of the different compared features? --145.99.202.92 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flat file means that it does not use a database, but instead stores all the data in files on the file system. Usually, this is a proprietary format that is only used by the software, as opposed to common database engines. As for the explanation of features, the title "Flat File" is a wiki link to the explanation... Rob.daemon 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or do you mean flat as opposed to threaded? In a flat forum, each post appears one after the other, in order of time. In a threaded forum, a post is made in reply to an existing one, which means the posts aren't necessarily ordered in time, but in a logical flowing structure. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a great start, but it's getting rather unwieldy. It baffles me that there isn't a site like WikiMatrix or Open Source CMS to help people compare the relative merits, system specs/performance etc of the oldest and most established form of social software on the Net --Case (04 March 06)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software  (aeropagitica)  15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the note about the Phorum API when reffering to database storage. I think we need a general concensus. phpBB, for exmaple, has a DBAL, so anyone can write one for any database type PHP can use. (and already have, Oracle and mysqli exsist). I would like to hear other's reasoning about adding notes as to which forums have extendable database API's/DBAL's. NeoThermic 15:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the forum features, including database support, as to what it would support if you downloaded it and installed it, i.e. a straight-out-of-the-box version. Obviously it could have any feature you wanted if you added it in - so changing it to "yes (with modification)" is unhelpful. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]