Amazing work :)

[khlo]

Hey y'all.

I'm a loyal guy over from the Invision camp, but I've just grabbed phpBB 2.1.2 CVS and I'm amazed. Really amazed. The phpBB team have created a world-class product which blows all of it's commercial rivals out of the window, and with features such as Jabber support, LDAP authentication, Bots, Custom BBCode, and the neat UCP. This is a product which incorporates features which I'm used to and can't moderate a board without, without the bloat such as integration with commercial products and paid subscription managers.

Above all, it offers a decent free alternative to the paid rivals. The improvements made in 2.2 IMO would consistute more then a 0.2 version increment in most version systems, at least a 2.5 or 3.0 would be apt. It may be the version numbering which leads to the downfall, as it'll very easily be written off as phpBB 2.2 plus a new skin. Many people I've spoken to about 2.2 didn't even bother checking, and told me phpBB sucked. To be honest, 2.0 isn't great - it's not powerful enough. 2.x = Bad Thoughts. If phpBB 2.2 can be given a 3.0 version, I'm pretty sure it'll succeed.

Anyway, great work so far, and keep it up

[OddDuck]

If phpBB 2.2 can be given a 3.0 version, I'm pretty sure it'll succeed.

It will succeed regardless of the numbering scheme.

[SamG]

... Many people I've spoken to about 2.2 didn't even bother checking, and told me phpBB sucked. To be honest, 2.0 isn't great - it's not powerful enough. 2.x = Bad Thoughts. If phpBB 2.2 can be given a 3.0 version, I'm pretty sure it'll succeed....

I know the developers have commented on the version numbering and they seem happy sticking with the system in place.

As for 2.0 not being powerful enough, that's obviously a matter of opinion or of need. There is in these forums a recent thread taking the opposite view, saying that 2.2 is getting too complicated. The developers seem forever dern'd if they do, and dern'd if they don't.

All that to say, I think phpBB 2.2 will continue the 2.0 heritage as a product used by those who find it satisfactory; the developers seem content to call that "success." If there are people who see no need to give phpBB 2.2 a look, that's certainly their option.

It is, after all, all about picking the tool that serves the purposes of a given community, and there are very diverse community needs on the web. There are countless WWWBoards still active, for example. Fiddling with version numbers won't alter that dynamic, in my opinion.

[cyberCrank]

Many people I've spoken to about 2.2 didn't even bother checking, and told me phpBB sucked.

Well then, their opinions could likely be considered less than informed if they did not even check. The informed would more likely judge by such things as the feature set, options needed, performance, ease of use for installation and administration, etc. These type aspects weigh more than a version number IMO; the current scheme seems fine for its intended purpose. Plus many application vendors "adjust" their version number to some seemingly arbitrary and contrived numbering scheme to simply match their competitors.

[Mvastango]

Yes. I never pay attention to version numbers any more. Especially after Winamp 5.

[khlo]

Many people I've spoken to about 2.2 didn't even bother checking, and told me phpBB sucked.

Well then, their opinions could likely be considered less than informed if they did not even check. The informed would more likely judge by such things as the feature set, options needed, performance, ease of use for installation and administration, etc. These type aspects weigh more than a version number IMO; the current scheme seems fine for its intended purpose. Plus many application vendors "adjust" their version number to some seemingly arbitrary and contrived numbering scheme to simply match their competitors.

You proved my point People are not informing themselves, because of the version number. The aspects definetly weigh more then the version number, but people simply overlook something because the version number is almost the same.

There is in these forums a recent thread taking the opposite view, saying that 2.2 is getting too complicated.

If theres people who strongly prefer 2.0 or 2.2 over the other then the change between the versions must be big enough to constitute these views. It should be very rare a user would prefer a older version than a minor update to it.

Plus many application vendors "adjust" their version number to some seemingly arbitrary and contrived numbering scheme to simply match their competitors.

Why not employ the same tactics as others If you want to look like your on a par, adjust your version numbering to suit. Unless theres a phpBB 3.0 around the corner which would be released this year, I'd say a 2.2 makes phpBB look like a mainly idle product. Invision recently adjusted their version scheme - their 2.0 is really 1.4. But 2.0 sounds much more attractive

Just my £0.02

[SamG]

There is in these forums a recent thread taking the opposite view, saying that 2.2 is getting too complicated.

If theres people who strongly prefer 2.0 or 2.2 over the other then the change between the versions must be big enough to constitute these views. It should be very rare a user would prefer a older version than a minor update to it.... Invision recently adjusted their version scheme - their 2.0 is really 1.4. But 2.0 sounds much more attractive

Just my £0.02

And everybody is entitled to their $0.02 . But given that phpBB is an open source project and that its version numbers follow an open source tradition, what Matt and company do is really beside the point. And people who are complaining about 2.2 being too complicated would likely not complain less if the version was 3.0 ... so there it is, so far as I know.

[Graham]

Yes, from a marketing viewpoint, you could argue for a 3.x version number, but from the open source coding viewpoint, this is still just an evolution of the 2.x product line (think the change from the 2.4 to 2.6 linux kernal for example).

Personally, I feel that if you have to inflate your version numbers to make something appear more than it is (*cough* AOL *cough*) then you probably have other issues to worry about.

[A_Jelly_Doughnut]

On the other hand, you have some projects that have been rewriten umpteen times but have yet to reach 1.0. And somewhere in the middle, you have code named projects...such as Windows XP.

I said recently in a topic here that I think phpBB 3.0 will come around when PHP advances to include thing such as a DBAL, smarty, unicode, or somesuch.

[DK]

I think this guy wasn't as heavy into it back when phpbb 1.4 was around. the leap from 1.x to 2.x in the phpBB circle alone was an outstanding one. I would liken it to windows3.x -> win95. In comparison to other forums, it competed with and oftentimes beat most commerical products out of the gate without even taking into account the ability to mod every single line of code and not pay a cent.


x years later now that other forums have moved up a couple versions and some now have paid staffs etc etc yes phpbb2.0 is lacking IMHO on some fronts but therein lies one of the 2 major detractable from open source projects.... people dont get paid oftentimes and have other jobs to do and still live a life, and people come and go since it is a volunteer type basis assignment. But you have to weigh in the fact I didnt have to pay $300 for another board and $x for upgrades etc etc and I redid about 30% of my board on my own which helped me in not having to reinvent the wheel and layed a good framework. It depends on what side you want to look at it from.