Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
A UseBB2 Developer's Opinion
Vanilla looks like a decent system, but there is not really a good reason for its popularity over many other smaller projects (including ours). From what I have seen Vanilla resembles miniBB or Phorum, but has gotten the “Web 2.0″ plate because it looks different (not only in layout and colours), but is has “discussions� (the same as active topics in many other software) on the front page and a tradtional forum index as “categories�. In most software, you can switch these too by applying some small modifications. It does not have any of the other “Web 2.0″ features, there’s no AJAX, no tagging, etc. In that aspect, I find it sad and unfair to other projects that exist for a longer time that get kicked away, just because of a so called “Web 2.0″ application that isn’t one.
But, the market is open for anyone who dares to be different (like Vanilla), so that’s where our v2 is heading. Although I’m not developing UseBB 2 just to have a “Web 2.0″ application but because of the improvements it will have over v1. I’m also glad to see that UseBB 1, since it’s feature-complete, is slowly getting accepted in the community. However I guess it will never become as popular as Vanilla, it wasn’t coded that well and is waiting is faith of getting put to the basement as soon as UseBB 2 is complete and PHP 4 will vanish.
http://www.pixelcarnage.com/development/next_generation_forum_software#comment_2
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Putting out an open-source product is a lot of work. A hell of a lot more work than creating one that never has it's code released to the public. I commend anyone who takes on that task, regardless of the result.
I came from another open source software group, and had nigh 7000 posts on their support forum. I changed to Vanilla because it was not only coded better, but from the ground-up it was a LOT smarter. I love the way Vanilla cuts through the junk that other forums stand on, and gets to what forums are about: discussion.
it does have ajax in the right places... maybe you need to look into it a little more deeply, rather than spreading misinformation.
I don't get why you're sore that a totally different product in the same LARGE market segment is getting more attention than your standard, seen it a hundred times before forum software.
heehee!
Web 1.0 or 2.0, most non-geeks don't care (and even among geeks the blog-o-sphere have poked their fun at it too, zeldman for example) - I don't even think it's worth asserting a division. The hype concentrates too strongly on a label/look thing rather than a quality-of-use thing – the average user is more interested in how easy it is to use, the web developer and designer how easy it is to install and harness / adapt / expand / skin / translate to their needs and that of their users.
I'd also say that the discussion-centred approach suit different needs and tastes as well as prior forum experience:
- The chat-focussed user will like it immediately - discussions are brought right to the front. Also I think it is inherently usable for those with little experience of forums - there's no system or jargon to learn, just get down to talking.
- On the other hand, those very familiar with forums, as well as those whose forums work together with a larger CMS/php-environment may find it difficult to get away from the traditional forum pattern - there was another thread here recently, where someone said that their users could not get used to it, and that they were used to the other site integration features, which vanilla does not (yet) offer.
- Also those who run big and busy forums with lots and lots of disparate categories (the kind that span from web-design to films to music to shopping to self-help all in one forum) will probably find the discussion-centred approach results in too much of a jumble of topics, and will run vanilla only in category mode, or simply opt for another forum.
> I couldn't see any AjaxPerhaps it's because vanilla doesn't use it in an overtly visible way. The ajax is mostly unobtrusively in the back end and in some of the controls - things like changing settings, bookmarking/unbookmarking discussions etc. without having to reload the page, and probably most visibly in re-ordering category orders. In all these cases I feel it supports a task.
If it was to learn things and gain useful experience, then I think you've succeeded.
If it was to become the dominant forums software around, and change the way forums are run, then you probably went about it the wrong way in the first place.
Dietrich: > > I'm not ashamed to admit that in public, UseBB is a personal hobby project and I learnt a lot about PHP development while working at it. That's one of the reasons a new major version is being planned and to make the many new features (such as tags, also requested by the BoardTracker project) possible."
Please don't hate me, I am fascinated by irony.
I also think the significance of digg etc. cuts only with certain people and its notoriously short-lived - only today I read over at open brackets the french phrase "the dogs bark, the caravan passes", which I quite liked. You set up a forum and write forum software for other reasons. And in terms of learning and personal gain, as you stated earlier, I'm sure you've not been wasting your time at all.
Append 'bb' to your name, and it is assumed. 'bb' is a serious handicap if you are trying to be perceived as 'Web 2.0' (whatever that means). Perhaps reposition yourself with a more adagious name would help your image. I mean very few 'Web 2.0' applications havve technical names : Vanilla, Basecamp, Campfire, TaDa List, Flickr, Scuttle, Pligg.
Perhaps consider completely repositioning your image with v.2.
I guess the same could be said to you about Vanilla being a Phorum clone and not having AJAX in it eh?