SimplePortal
Support => English Support => Topic started by: Lineman on June 12, 2011, 01:07:35 PM
-
I am just wondering if SP will work with the final SMF 2?
I have the latest SP with RC5 and want to upgrade to the final stable release of SMF 2.
-
I couldn't get it to install, but there may be a way to change a line of code to allow it to install. I'm not a programmer so I can't help.
-
On package install - did you try using the advanced option and set the version for the package. I did upgrade to 2.0 final on my XAMPP (test server) install and have a mix of RC4 and RC5 mods installed.
Setting the version to SMF 2.0 and applying the install mod link will appear.
This is assuming that SP has never been installed, I have only done this on my test server and not the live site. Fair warning .... For an SMF upgrade I usually de-install all the mods which sometimes causes additional overheard or work to get things in the original state after the upgrade.
Probably best to wait to hear what the plan is for SP..
-
Yup, did all of that for other mods. Ironically, it installed when I went back to 2.0 only after a fresh upload. Wouldn't do that before, but did now. I'm not questioning it.
-
SP 2.3.3 will work fine on SMF 2.0 final. However, due to copyright changes in 2.0 final, the copyright for SP may not look that good and that's why I haven't marked SP as 2.0 final compatible yet. We'll be releasing a new version soon which will fix that and all other bugs reported.
-
Thank you SiNaN :D
-
Hi there!
Wonderful, so I will wait with SMF 2Final until 2.3.4 is out to get full compatibility.
Ah and pls do not forget to update your "Costum Portal" Mod to it! Its really great!!
-
SP 2.3.3 will work fine on SMF 2.0 final. However, due to copyright changes in 2.0 final, the copyright for SP may not look that good and that's why I haven't marked SP as 2.0 final compatible yet. We'll be releasing a new version soon which will fix that and all other bugs reported.
I wonder if you've given any thought to an option to remove (or purchase the right to remove) the SimplePortal copyright? Reason being, now that SMF license allows full removal of their copyright, that would leave the SimplePortal copyright down there alone, which looks odd.
-
Why would you like to remove the copyright thingy. It's all for FREE, the forum, the portal and lots of mods.
The least you MUST do is leave the copyright there where it should belong!
Just my personal opinion.
-
Why would you like to remove the copyright thingy. It's all for FREE, the forum, the portal and lots of mods.
Because I'd like to use this product in a corporate environment, for a professional looking web page. And I'd like to trick the visitors to that page into thinking that I have the skills to do it without anyone else.
-
Why would you like to remove the copyright thingy. It's all for FREE, the forum, the portal and lots of mods.
The least you MUST do is leave the copyright there where it should belong!
Just my personal opinion.
Because the copyright need be and should only be within the source code, where it belongs. That's all that's necessary for it to be effective. Copyrights which are forced to be emblazoned on every visible page aren't "copyrights"... they're advertisements. Not all of us want ad-plagued forums.
One of the things with SMF is a strong emphasis on a simplistic core and the use of mods (extensions) to add the desired functionality and customize the final product. As a result, one has to use a large number of mods to get a full feature set. There is a disturbing trend now for all mods to tag on their own ads (euphemised as "copyrights") to the bottom of every page... a lot more-so now than used to be the case with SMF 1.x. I have 90 some odd mods on my SMF 1.x production site, and not a single one felt the need to use my forum as advertising space for some "copyright" (except SMF itself). However, on my test SMF 2.0 site, I've only installed 20 of my desired mods and I already have 4 copyrights making my footer ugly... and some contain broken HTML. At that pace, I'd have close to 20 "copyrights" (ads) tagged on every single page.
I respect the hard work of authors providing these mods for free, the need for copyright, and the desire to get "credit". But that's the purpose of the special "credits" page in SMF and should be the exclusive place for such advertising, while the "copyright" notice should only be placed within the source code where it belongs... meanwhile leaving the overall site ad-free without an unreasonable burden on the site aesthetics. While each individual mod creator might feel that "one copyright isn't 'unreasonable'", the fact is that no one uses only one mod, and when all the mod authors take this stance (as is becoming the trend) they pile up and it is indeed unreasonable.
I mean no disrespect... but I hope that sensible minds can prevail here. The current "copyright" trend craze isn't ok and I hope for a shift back to good habits so that SMF and SMF-forum admins can have good-looking sites again. :)
Thanks... and cheers...
-
SP 2.3.3 will work fine on SMF 2.0 final. However, due to copyright changes in 2.0 final, the copyright for SP may not look that good and that's why I haven't marked SP as 2.0 final compatible yet. We'll be releasing a new version soon which will fix that and all other bugs reported.
Any sort of timeline when you think that version will be released? I'm working on upgrading my site to 2.0, rebuilding it from scratch then just moving the database over, and I'd hate to get almost done only to have 2.3.4 released and have to start the whole process all over again.
-
{copyright discussion}
I don't think it's unfair for SP to put a visible copyright link under the SMF copyright. It's a large mod. I agree, though, that simple mods starting to add visible copyright link to every page is insane.
However, since you are now able to remove SMF copyright, we're seriously considering getting rid of SP copyright link in the footer as well. It's not going to change for 2.3.4 but it may in 2.4.
Any sort of timeline when you think that version will be released? I'm working on upgrading my site to 2.0, rebuilding it from scratch then just moving the database over, and I'd hate to get almost done only to have 2.3.4 released and have to start the whole process all over again.
We avoid giving release dates however I'm hoping for sometime during the first week of July. This is not an official release date and may change. If you are fine with how copyright looks with 2.3.3 version, there shouldn't be any other problems with it. You'll be able to upgrade to 2.3.4 easily when it's out.
-
we've installed last simple portal version on a fresh SMF v2 , without any problem !
-
{copyright discussion}
I don't think it's unfair for SP to put a visible copyright link under the SMF copyright. It's a large mod. I agree, though, that simple mods starting to add visible copyright link to every page is insane.
However, since you are now able to remove SMF copyright, we're seriously considering getting rid of SP copyright link in the footer as well. It's not going to change for 2.3.4 but it may in 2.4.
Every other portal mod for SMF adds a copyright, as do portals for other forum systems. I see no problem with leaving one there, but if you really do want to go that route, make it visible by default and include a setting to hide it. That way people who like showing off the power of SMF and its mods can still do so, while those who would prefer to let others think that they designed it themselves can do so as well :)
-
Hi there!
How things are going for 2.3.4 since some time is ago since SMF2 is ready?
-
up ! =)
-
However, since you are now able to remove SMF copyright, we're seriously considering getting rid of SP copyright link in the footer as well. It's not going to change for 2.3.4 but it may in 2.4.
Any new thoughts on this option?
-
I have to admit I had forgotten about this. I'll discuss this with the team and get back to you. Feel free to bump this if you don't get any replies from me in a week.
-
This doesn't really matter on most of the forums I run, but there's one that is a technical help desk, and I avoid stacking up copyrights at the bottom of the page if at all possible.