Welcome to Geeklog Thursday, October 19 2017 @ 06:52 am EDT


Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
Very slick! I especially liked the part it saves us from setting up ourselves mb_internal_encoding in our php.ini. Now I wonder if I should change my mb_internal_encoding back to its default and let Geeklog change it for me on will.

2 problems though (although they're general and not your fault):
  1. Can sites use Unicode without installing mbstring in their PHP? I hope the answer is no because then your solution really makes perfect sense.
  2. It's still too early to pose v1.4.1 as a system requirement, so I guess for now the system requirement of "installing mbstring" would have to do.

tokyoahead

Anonymous
the new functions do not replace the mb_string functions as such. they simply allow plugin writers to not worry about them. they simply detect if mb_string is available on the server and use it if yes, and use normal string functions if not. so unicode does not work properly if you dont have mb_string.

the problem with the internal encoding is that the changing might be blocked by the server. so you will still have to go through php.ini. also when writing software you have to accomodate that users might get into trouble.

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
Not being able to rely the users have v1.4.1 yet aside, this is the problem:

Old situation:
Always assume mbstring isn't installed (result: plugin simply can't be used by admins who use Unicode in it).

My solution:
Always assume mbstring is installed (result: plugin simply can't be used by admins who didn't install mbstring).

Your solution:
Use both ways, but...if it's possible for an admin to use Unicode without installing mbstring, we get the old situation back. So is it possible? If you say it's not, it solves everything.

tokyoahead

Anonymous
Use both ways, but...if it's possible for an admin to use Unicode without installing mbstring, we get the old situation back. So is it possible? If you say it's not, it solves everything.


I dont really get the meaning of this sentence.

The best for you as a plugin dev, ship lib-mbyte with your plugin. rename the functions also so 1.4.1 user wont get errors. Then you cater to both.

and again, unicode _works_ without mb_string, simply counting letters in a word does not, and substr() returns broken last letters and very short strings if you want to cut a string to allow it to fit in a block etc. I cannot think of a place right now where it would seriously break a function right now.

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
If an admin uses Unicode in their plugin without installing mbstring (if it's possible), then your function would use substr and therefore break that admin's Unicode (the way the plugins act now).

tokyoahead

Anonymous
Admins do not 'use Unicode in their plugin'. The user chooses a unicode language.
Admins only use functions that to not return the expected result when used on a unicode content such as substr() or strlen()

So if an admin uses my MBYTE-functions, the plugin would still work on unicode languages in both mb-string enabled and disabled systems without returning a php error, but not deliver the expected results. Most of these unexpected results nowhever apply only to places where strings are cut to a certain length or letters in a string are counted, as well as when a search is done for a short word.

So the consequences are quite small and maybe inconvenient, but do not 'break the plugin'.

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
Yea, I meant "break" not as in the breaking the page, just the characters themselves. I wish v1.4.1 would be officially out so your function would be "official" too (until then maybe I'll implement your idea about a local lib-mbyte or just write the system requirement is lib-mbyte from v1.4.1b since it doesn't overwrite an older version).

tokyoahead

Anonymous
btw. I am waiting for your input on a bunch of feature requests, bugs and patches over at sf.net for the multifaq plugin. If I do not get an input on those before 1.4.1 is out, you will have to wait for those things until I release the 2.3 of the plugin, which wont be this year for sure.

further, I would like to mention again that you are violating the GPL by continuing to distribute the Forum, File Management and Chatterblock on your site.

I do not understand why you do not simply run a search/replace on the plugin name and post it under a different name on your site if you must.

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
Yea, Sourceforge doesn't inform about replies so once I comment on several things inside a project it's pretty much impossible to follow constantly. I've now replied to what I found unanswered. Be sure to tell me if I missed anything.

Since it says clearly in the comments of each and every file that those are my updates to X's work (including dates), I find it hard to believe it's a violation. If only it just came down to run a search and replace. There's also database keys (especially the usage of which that's spead out) and functions' names that don't involve the plugin's name or contain just 2 letters like "cb" that probably can't be searched and replaced without breaking something. Add to that the fact that "filemgmt" and even more so "forum" are pretty generic names. That's not to say I wouldn't do it, since a new official Filemgmt came out and ignored everything I did (and what is similar was probably redone from scratch - I wonder how long it took) so looks like's there's no way out but to fork, but it takes time and you don't exactly see me spreading the news around about those new plugins (except this topic which until our discussion about MultiFAQ just strayed for useless directions) until I get them forked.

tokyoahead

Anonymous
In case someone downloads & uses those versions on your site will have upgrade trouble as soon as you give out another version with different table names. You will have to write an upgrade software that you can save yourself if you simply take the software off your site.

Status: offline

jmucchiello

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 29/08/2005
Posts: 985
Quote by tokyoahead: further, I would like to mention again that you are violating the GPL by continuing to distribute the Forum, File Management and Chatterblock on your site.
I'm curious about this considering just about every GL distribution and plugin violates the letter of the GPL.** How is LWC violating it moreso than the others?

** The GPL requires that you distribute the LICENSE file with every distribution package. Ironically, every php file says
PHP Formatted Code
// | You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License         |
// | along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,   |
// | Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.           |
 
yet I have never seen the LICENSE file distributed with Geeklog.

Status: offline

Dirk

Site Admin
Admin
Registered: 12/01/2002
Posts: 13073
Location:Stuttgart, Germany
Quote by jmucchiello: yet I have never seen the LICENSE file distributed with Geeklog.

There is, however, a file called "license" (all lowercase) in public_html/docs.

bye, Dirk

Status: offline

jmucchiello

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 29/08/2005
Posts: 985
I'm use to seeing it in the root of the tar file. Still I'm curious what LWC is doing that violates the GPL.

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
If you read the whole topic, I'm accused of two things (sometimes at the same time) - that I take others' work and present it as my own and that I present my work as others' work. Regarding the latter, someone quoted a paragraph from the license that says one shouldn't pretend his work is actually someone else's work. This was why I've said that until I fork officially, do remember each and every file states it's an update by myself that uses the previous work of X (thus dealing with both accusations). Adding to that, "filemgmt" and especially "forum" use as generic names as they can get. I guess the real problem is the upgrade concept so when I fork you just wouldn't have your old data in the new plugin (until I add import ability).

tokyoahead

Anonymous
I think you still misunderstood what is wrong, LWC.
I'm accused that I take others' work and present it as my own
Wrong. everybody knew that you did not take out the copyright information of the file.

I present my work as others' work
True. You did not change the names and set the version number back to 1.0. Users would download your version of the forum and think its a release from Blaine for example.

Each and every file states it's an update by myself that uses the previous work of X
Sure, as I said after the first quote, nobody doubted that. But users do rarely read the content of the files. They only compare the title of the program/script, download and install it.

"filemgmt" and especially "forum" use as generic names as they can get.
You do not have to use generic names. "google" is not a generic name. "geeklog" is not a generic name. Call it GLFiles and GLForum if you want. Finally those two plugins were the first of their kind for Geeklog, so they can have any name they want, and as generic as can be.

But this all was (as far as I can see) just a problem of you underestimating the consequences for users when there are suddenly two authors releasing plugins with the same names and similar version numbers. And this is where the GPL is in conflict with your actions. The preamble clearly states that you are expected to change the name of the software in case you redistribute it with modifications.

The point were people got mad at you was, that you, simply because you made some small changes to the code (around 1% of the code as far as I can estimate) and setup a forum, thought that the original authors would stop using their CVS/SVN systems, their forums, online help, websites, file repositories, send all their users to your site, reverse their current advances in the code to the level of the last release, take your changes blindly and accept you as the new distributor/supporter/main author of their software, on your website with political messages hey might not even agree with. All that after they have been working on those plugins for years and given support to hundreds of users. All that without you ever even talking to them about it. All that just because you thought they do not work fasst enough to met your demands.

But this is not a GPL problem. This was simply perceived as extremely arrogant.

I guess the real problem is the upgrade concept so when I fork you just wouldn't have your old data in the new plugin (until I add import ability).
Not really. The problem is that users, if you do NOT fork, will mess up their system as soon as they update your version with that of the original author. If you do fork, only you have a problem of writing a function that copies the old tables to a new name.

The biggest problem in most of these issues lies with the users. Since you did not have any users of your software (yet) except yourself, you probably did not think about them. You thought only that you wanted your register_globals off and LTR/RTL and some more add-on features. Thats also why you see only a problem in you needing to write a import script and not other users messing up their sites because you don't want to fork.

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
I was going to quote some comments that contradicted your statement about "everybody", but if you think I changed just 1% and I don't know how you measured that, then obviously you yourself think I took credit for others' work.

Also, don't you think it's a little far fetched to conclude from the fact I set up a forum to help with the new features that I planned a new world order? When did I ever say those things that you take out of my mouth? And what do any political opinions have to do with any of this? All that's missing in your description is me sitting in my secret base petting a kitten. And no, I'm not going to comment on not trying to contact authors again as I grew tired of repeating it in vain.

So many words for no good reason. If only we concentrated half that effort to Geeklog.

tokyoahead

Anonymous
Also, don't you think it's a little far fetched to conclude from the fact I set up a forum to help with the new features that I planned a new world order?
You set up a forum in the intent to help with the complete plugin from that time on, not only with the new features. People go for support fo plugins either to gl.net or to the plugins author site, the "official site". As you said:
My goal is for my versions to be recognized as the new official versions, and if Blaine ever adds new features, I wish he would just continue my versions.
which directly implies that your site with your forum will be the new homepage for the plugin. Its surely not the world as you claim, but quite much as expecting him to stop using his site.
And what do any political opinions have to do with any of this?
When me & Blaine, in the process mentioned above, would have started using your site, we would have to accept that the plugins are published along with your political statements (which you now removed, but were there when this thread started) on your site. This, I think is not something I would want to do as a software author. If we would want to be political, we have our own opinions, and do not want to endorse those of other people.
I'm not going to comment on not trying to contact authors
This is not about sending emails to authors to ask for fixes & features. That you did quite frequently. This is about sending a message to authors to talk about the question who is the maintainer of the plugin, who's site will be used for distribution and who will contribute to the code, who will release the "official version". That you did not, ever.
So many words for no good reason.
There is a very good reason: I want to make sure that everyone reading this thread understands the problems of the things happened and is aware that forking is the better way to go than trying to move the official version to another author. And that the user is the central point of the program and not the author. So all changes to the software, its distribution, upgrade and maintenance have to be done with the needs of the user in mind, not the author's. Otherwise one better does not publish the code, and not make a forum & answer to support requests.

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
The "political messages" belong to a previous version of the site and since archiving ruins the structure of the topics, I just made them available to registered users - that was way before this topic even started.

Status: offline

kemal

Forum User
Regular Poster
Registered: 05/04/2005
Posts: 103
Location:Turkey
when i installed your forum and turn back to old version my forum options giving errors. And to day i tried to install Blain's new forum v2.6 i can't upgrade. and can not showing my forum! I dont know what is the problem. But please someone help me :banghead:
_KEMAL_

Status: offline

LWC

Forum User
Full Member
Registered: 19/02/2004
Posts: 818
Back in September I wrote to you in the forum over there how to downgrade via PHPMyAdmin. Just run the line I gave you and the upgrade would then work.

All times are EDT. The time is now 06:52 am.

  • Normal Topic
  • Sticky Topic
  • Locked Topic
  • New Post
  • Sticky Topic W/ New Post
  • Locked Topic W/ New Post
  •  View Anonymous Posts
  •  Able to post
  •  Filtered HTML Allowed
  •  Censored Content