Update Forum Software?

[deleted]

Hi,

While this forum software is okay, I think that there are lots of other alternative software that could serve the community better. Here's a small list:

http://www.discourse.org/
http://flarum.org/
https://vanillaforums.org/

I have used all three, and am pleased with each. Discourse is probably the one choice I'd use if it was up to me, just because of it's elegant design and simplicity to administer, but Vanilla is stable too. Unfortunately Flarum is not as stable when it comes to extensions and use.

Cheers,
Walt

[Kazinsal]

Forum software migration is a royal pain in the arse. The software we use currently works fine.

If it ain't broke...

[BrightLight]

I don't see any sane reason to change the forum software. This version of phpBB may be old, but it works, is fast, and it meets most of our requirements. The overall effort to change forum software will not be worth it. IMHO, a static server-generated page is better suited to me than a JavaScript-bloated page.

[Octacone]

I agree with TrekOSDeveloper, sort of.
As far as I can tell this forum is very stable. I wouldn't change the layout much to be honest. Only thing I hate about this forum is that is looks like so 2002ish. It has one really outdated design. I think they should switch to a more material like theme.

Something like this

[Roman]

To be honest, I dislike all this fuss about web design. The main characteristic of a web page should be readability (+ usability and security, if it's interactive). The current software works perfectly, I hope it's also not vulnerable. The only thing I dislike is absence of adaptive design.

[Ycep]

@Roman +1. Forums do not need modern design. phpBB is excellent forum software.
Anyways, I'm not sure how could you transfer all threads and similar into another forum software? I think that it should just be updated to newest phpBB version. Search bar works pretty better than before.
Buttons look little bit better than older ones.

[Octacone]

[quote="Lukand"Forums do not need modern design.[/quote]

(Lukand + Roman) I agree. Why to enter 2016 when we can stay in 20 000 BC.
I think that this search engine needs to be improved. So it works more like Google. I want it to be more topic related and less like to see every reply that contains that word.

[Roman]

So it works more like Google.

Discover Google search operators.

Why to enter 2016 when we can stay in 20 000 BC.

Newer != better.

[Kazinsal]

The DarkGreen skin on the forums is nice.

[jeaye]

Updating phpBB, for the sake of security, is a good idea. I don't see the benefit in a transition to other forum software, but I wouldn't be opposed to differently-themed UI.

[Ycep]

So it works more like Google.

Discover Google search operators.

Why to enter 2016 when we can stay in 20 000 BC.

Newer != better.

Damn! What resolution are you using!?

[Octacone]

So it works more like Google.

Discover Google search operators.

Why to enter 2016 when we can stay in 20 000 BC.

Newer != better.

Damn! What resolution are you using!?

I think he uses 2880x1800.

[Schol-R-LEA]

I don't know either Flarum or Vanilla, but I can tell you why using Discourse would be a bad idea in three words: Jeff Atwood's Ego. For more flavor on this, I recommend putting on your flame-retardant clothes, putting in some nose plugs, and diving into What the Daily WTF's extensive and nasty archive of @wood's behavior during the whole beta-testing debacle.

I recommend starting at the 'Discopaedia' thread to get a sense of just how bitter things really got between Jeff and the forum-goers.

To summarize, Atwood agreed to let Alex Papadimoulis run the testbed site for Discourse as the Daily WTF's forums. Now, Jeff's whole goal of a 'civilized discourse' was immediately at odds with the tone of this forum, which could be best described as the love child of an ACM conference and 4chan's notorious /b/ channel. Jeff's reaction to the frequent, well-researched, and immensely scathing bug reports and user complaints was to deny that any of the reports were valid, and eventually to ban all WTDWTF members - and later, anyone from any other non-paying site - who had the audacity to make a bug report on discourse.com's Meta.d forum (which was used in lieu of an actual bug tracker).

Eventually, the admins had enough of both the complaints and @wood's incessant interference with their own forum, and moved to NodeBB, which is just as buggy but has developers who are willing to listen to the users.

[Ycep]

Reading that on my 1366x768 (HD) screen... I have never heard for resolution bigger than 1600x1200, through...

[Schol-R-LEA]

Reading that on my 1366x768 (HD) screen... I have never heard for resolution bigger than 1600x1200, through...

There are several, especially if you take into account the latest 4K (3840 x 2160/60p on a 16:9 aspect ratio) and 5K (5120×2880 on the same scan and aspect) and 8K (7680 × 4320 ditto) hardware. While 5K is generally only used by Apple so far, and 8K hasn't really come out yet, 4K UHD is picking up steam now that HDMI 2.0 (which can support it 2160p at 60Hz) is getting into production monitors and TVs.

Monitors, at least those using Displayport, have supported 2560 × 1440 (16:9 aspect ratio) and 2560 × 1600 (16:10 aspect ratio) since 2007, though it never got to be very common. You don't see a lot of software (or media, broadcasts, or consoles, for TVs) that support them, but with the growing interest in 4K UHD that's probably going to change in the next few years.