hi :)

I'm a user who is very much confortable with computers. As such, I did end up managing setting up my vanilla and adding extensions.

however, i encountered a long list of problems. more specifically, countless bugs and problems with add-ons. things that i had to manually change myself, editing the code.

now, why the downloadable file doesn't already have the corrections is something beyond me (and i say this without the least bit of cinicism).

also, this whole "extensions thing" is hard for new users.
in fact, the whole concept of vanilla is! let me explain:

i'm not sure who vanilla is aimed for.

it looks like it aims also at inexperienced users, being as intuitive as it's supposed to be.
however, if one of these inexperienced users should try and set one up, he'll go through a very rough bit of time.

here's a suggestion i can offer: that somehow, one could select what vanilla pack to download. an example:
i want to download vanilla. i take a look at the extensions available, and say: "i want this one, this one, and that one."

click

download

your vanilla has those 3 extensions. you see?

just my 0,2 cents for the open source community :)
we should all be more noob friendly!

forgive my possibly more harsh tone - i tried to improve the tone but the late hour and long day didn't let me do that!

kudos!

yeah, that's exactly as I imagine it!

All the "noobs" would have to do is chmod their vanilla installation properly.
but someone could write a 20 pages long help for that ;-)

downloading and especially updating extensions should be a one-click-process

// edit: an extension state would also be nice. like: alpha, beta, stable
so that all these versions are there to download. but I guess that's a cimpletly different topic

I kinda like the idea of a download package of Vanilla with the extensions I choose, but it would be a lot of hard work for Mark. Perhaps someone, like you sahba, should start making and maintaining a few "Vanilla with Sprinkles" packages which include a set of good extensions that are known to work together, all bundled and preinstalled? If you search the frums here I think there are a few occasions when Mark has voiced his support for this kind of things happening.

On a side note, it would absolutely ROCK if I could browse the addons repository through my Vanilla admin panel and just click "install", "enable", "update", "disable" and/or "uninstall". I'm not sure what the security implications for this would be however...

Somewhere there are some screenshot mockups for suggested improvements to the extension pages which would improve things without going OTT and overcomplicating things.

Still, I like the idea of some maintained "Vanilla with Sprinkles" packages.

AV, that's two excellent examples you've just given :) Come on sahba, create them :)

Question for Mark/admins: if someone actually starts created packaged Vanilla installs, could an official place to download them be created, kinda like addons (only it's not strictly speaking an addon is it?)?

>> On a side note, it would absolutely ROCK if I could browse the addons repository through my Vanilla admin panel and just click "install", "enable", "update", "disable" and/or "uninstall".

That's exactly what I have in mind. Maybe addons could get something like "tested and ok" and then be available in that sort of download.
This way well written addons (no compatibility issues) would make a 1-click-install

btw: fopen works on *nix and windows ;-)

So, perhaps an RSS feed (doesn't have to be publically known what it is) that contains the information of tried and tested extensions, their version number, name, author etc, and a link to the latest zip for them. Then you could probably write an extension for Vanilla (if it's not in the core) which does all the checks, pulls using fopen if an update is needed, unzips overwrites the existing files, etc. If permissions weren't iffy, it probably wouldn't be -too- tricky. It would work in a similar way to the updates notifier currently, except it would actually pull and unzip the archives, and could even pull ones that haven't been installed before.

AFAIK fopen is pretty secure, unless your site is vulnerable to injected code (which would be problematic regardless of being able to pull stuff over from other webservers with fopen)

Adam.

the abundance of responses is so exciting, thank you very much.

stash, thanks also for suggesting that i'd work on this. however, i don't think i'm the man for the job. even if only because this needs a minimum amount of dedication, and i unfortunately am in a stage where i'm turning down just about everything - over how filled up my "2 do" list is!

you know, i think creating "Vanilla with sprinkles" (love the name! :)), would in reality be only a partial solution to a bigger problem: the addons lack adequate documentation; as ChadFenwick said, "people with no real webpage/ftp/whatever background could have some difficulty"; chmod issues, etc.

for an example, just a couple of nights ago i spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to figure out where to insert the google API key, for the Member Google Map addon. the readme file said that it was to be inserted in the "settings" field, under extensions, in my vanilla.
now, i've just recently installed vanilla. the logical thing would be for this field to be under the specific extension. but no, the addon simply added a new menu on the left hand menu bar - a menu which only appears if i refresh the page! would it have hurt for this to have been included in the readme? :)
also, i still don't understand why so many of the addons have to be fixed after the download.

as for Wanderer's comment:
"Having said all of that, Vanilla is free, the extensions are free, if you are not prepared for some head aches perhaps it's not for you. I personally enjoy the trouble-shooting aspect but then again, I don't have a mission-critical use for Vanilla, simply a hobby."

Wanderer, I hope you don't get upset my my following comment (because there's nothing to be upset about), but that approach, in my opinion, is the main thing holding back the expansion and greater access to open-source.
Forgive me for entering this oh so delicate field but, for an example, I know I won't be touching another version of Linux in the coming years. I feel I'm "stuck" to windows.

why?
because as much as i'd love to be a linux user (hell, it's sexy), i lack the time to figure things out at such a slow pace. responses to issues should be pre-existent, and not needed to be located in post numbers 38 and 54, respectively, of two different threads in some random and obsure forums.

i know that saying "this has to be done" and not doing may be seen as being against the open-source spirit. however, doing it is out of the question for me, for several different reasons. but i really can't understand why developers can't spend 10% more of their time documenting, and finally making open-source universal :)
again, i'm not being cynical - i just haven't understood it yet. if someone could explain, would love to hear the answer :)
the reason open-source isn't finally ruling over the world is not that it's not good enough - it's that it's "too good" for the rest of the world

all this, of course, is my little fraction of 2 cents :)

all the best,
sahba

I'm pretty sure that statement is ridiculously over generalised and pretty loosely termed. To even begin to think that Vanilla is the product of someone who writes code that 'appears to be working in one browser under one OS and release it ASAP' is ridiculous. I suppose your statement could be applied to some extension authors but it remains pretty generalised...
There are a whole multitude of reasons why no comments appear - for me it's because I've always coded on my own (and only ever as a self-taught hobby) - so comments are reasonably little use assuming i remember what i did something for to begin with (which sometimes I dont, and then I regret that I dont comment - but that's life) I'm also pretty lazy and lose interest in stuff pretty quickly...

but i really can't understand why developers can't spend 10% more of their time documenting, and finally making open-source universal :)

Personally, I find documentation incredibly boring. I love it when someone has documented well, as that allows me to learn stuff, but if I'm trying to figure something out I don't want to break the flow of thought. And for me at least, I just don't enjoy writing about how I did something. I could tell someone, once maybe, but that's it, no interest in it. I'm sure life would be better if people did document and comment stuff well, and I'm not excusing the lack of it, I'm hopefully just explaining one reason why.

What we really need, is documenters ;) Every office needs a good administrator and every coder needs a good documenter :D

first off: WallPhone, your post is beautiful, thank you.

Meanwhile, stash said: "What we really need, is documenters ;) Every office needs a good administrator and every coder needs a good documenter :D"

That's true!
But not gonna happen ;) I mean, sure, it would be perfect if it *did* happen. but i personally can't think of a way for it to happen.

i can also understand the argument: "programmers really enjoy programming, and don't really enjoy documenting - maybe that accounts for it"
but i can also understand that if there were documentation, there would naturally exist mechanisms to free the author from something he creates, enabling him to move on to something else - to the next level, if you will.

an example:
we have extensions here which have bugs.
the author has to come and fix them.
if there were documentation, and the right mechanisms (see the last couple of lines at http://lussumo.com/community/?CommentID=74403), it would be very simple for another programmer (who would be ever closer to the end user) to just fix it himself

in this way, the author wouldn't have to constantly keep track of what he has produced. he could, if he wanted to. but the speed of development would in this way be enhanced - and the author would in turn have further opportunities to embrace other projects.

to conclude, i think each programmer would do well in reflecting upon what would most benefit the community. and I strongly believe that he may very well conclude that the procedures which would most benefit the community are, in reality, the procedures that would most benefit himself.
kind of corny, but i think it's just how it is :)

this is a reflection which is urgent - for it should've been made long ago.

i think :)

Vanilla is free software, yes? Every bit as free as Linux, yes?

So nobody really needs permission to create their own pre-packaged Vanilla "distribution".

The sticky part is fixing bugs. You can't just update someone else's extension because you run the risk of getting out of sync when the author finally does fix it himself. You could fork the extensions you want and maintain your own "shadow" versions, but that's a hell of a lot of work, not to mention a potential licensing problem.

And, of course, some problems with extensions are due to bugs in Vanilla itself.

In any case, it would be great to have add-on status like AlexL mentioned (alpha, beta, stable, mature). Of course, some people have differing standards (hint: If it isn't documented, it isn't fucking finished yet).

Another vote for alpha, beta and stable rating of extensions. Of course, if it doesn't count as "stable" until it's documented, most stuff will stay beta forever ;)

Can I also suggest release histories? That way people can use older versions if they *really* want to.

squirrel, no one does need permission to create their own pre-packaged Vanilla distro, no. However, it is polite to see what Mark thinks about it no?

I agree that nothing will ever satisfy everyone, but why not make things a little easier for some? If you want to roll your own, that's still the recommended route to go after all ;)

If a package *is* perfect for you, then you have the added knowledge that the addons have all been tested together and function well — for some people, this will be just what they need/want.

It's easy enough as it is mate, certainly no difficulty to justify the effort required to create packages which will have limited appeal in any case.

This is as far as I'll take this part of the discussion as I'll feel we have a different view on this matter and that's fine, but there's no point trying to convince each other otherwise ;). I understand you don't see any value in bundled packages, but from the rest of the responses in this thread I'd say there's a reasonable appeal.

I completely agree that all extensions should be good-citizens, but as we all know, they're not. Mine have been the cause of some problems and so have many others. The link between compatible extensions and bundled packages is simply that some extension, by their very nature, conflict. Bundles will be guaranteed not to include conflicting extensions. That's all :)

Also, If someone is actually putting time and effort into putting together a bundle, they'll mention any conflicts between extensions that should work together to the extension authors and push a little harder. It's also possible that extension authors may feel a little more incentive to fix things if it looks like their extension is going to be put in a bundle because it's flattering :)

Also, some people will be interested (maybe) in putting together bundles who aren't necessarily interested in writing extensions, which will create more eyes to look at the problems and hopefully improve them.

Every add-on should be well tested, excellently documented and never conflict with anything else, but this isn't how things are or ever will be (not 100%), so anything that gives an incentive for this to happen has got to be good right?

Wanderer, I think that packages are beneficial even from a promotional stand-point... they say "Hey, you know this basic but stable forum software, look what it can do - just add sprinkles!", they average user is used to coming to a forum, bloated with useless crap, and I think it's great that Vanilla doesn't, but some of that crap they will still want - I am just suggesting that packages that sanitise Vanilla in a way that is familiar to what your average administrator comes to expect from a forum will give them a foot in the door as to the potential of Vanilla... they will soon realise, that they can remove and install extensions and will get the hang of it, but it isn't entirely obvious to begin with.

I think that beta, alpha and stable extensions are a great idea.

As for lack of documentation - where it is nice to have it, I don't think it is necessary - I have recently been taking apart Jazzman's MultiRoles extension, which is largely undocumented, but it didn't take long for me to understand his logic, and I am well on my way to reaching my goal with it. Perhaps a lack of documentation weeds out the poor coders? (not that I am particularly good... maybe it weeds out the undedicated xD)

Adam.

How many projects can you have at Google code? As many as you like? Can you bundle any number of extensions in on project?

From the Google Code page:
Note: you have a lifetime creation limit of 10 projects in total. If you need more, please come to the google-code-hosting Google Group to discuss.

Wonder if there's a way to make it so you can have all your extensions under one project?