(RFD) Amiga.org's future

[brianb]

As a software developer I think your attacking this problem from the wrong angle...  Developing for the lowest common denominator will always lead to poor/mediocre results and frustrating support.   In this case developing around the small minority of "classic" users will hinder the majority.  

Make a *great* site with the newest and coolest tools preserving the content as best as possible.  That should be goal #1.

If the site was meant to be viewed on classic hardware solutions will come forward (heck maybe even a new browser), and if not then there was probably never much interest anyway.

Besides simple/older browsers could always use something like http://mowser.com/   just give it a site and it renders a simple HTML version removing unnecessary code, CSS, images, etc.   Meant for mobile users, but I'm sure a possible work around for the hardcore classic users who have to use their classic systems on the web.

I think developing for the small minority, that do have some possible workarounds, is only going to limit you in the long run and cause increased frustration.  And for what?!  The 5% of people who might use a classic amiga to occasionally access this site?  Why bother...

My $0.02 anyway...

[modrobert]

Wayne wrote:

Required by the Web host actually.  PHP 4 was discontinued 3 years ago in favor of PHP 5 and the support path for PHP4 has now ended.

You might have considered this already, but if there is a demand to keep the site running "as is" I can recommend using a web hosting with virtual server (or dedicated server) and just install exactly what you need as "root" (eg. PHP4), not to mention the freedom to offer other services (besides web) to the Amiga community.

There are some benefits using old software on a web server in my opinion:

* Old software usually runs faster and less memory hungry.
* Keeping a system up to date for security is needed in new systems where evil hackers are active, while the really old stuff are reasonably safe. I guess the kids just don't know how to exploit them anymore.
* Old PHP sources are usually easy to edit and maintain yourself, just make changes as you see fit in a system you know everything about. Good luck doing that with the new stuff coded in an object oriented fashion.
* Needless to mention, old unsupported software doesn't require updates. Lovely to be the lazy admin, right?

I write this out of experience from taking care of my own web site www.eurasia.nu since 2002 (which once was a php nuke 5.6 long time ago, before I started customizing most of the PHP code).

[amiga_3k]

JOOMLA 1.5 is a major step forward over 1.0. A good reason for using it is, that it has a massive user-base and thus a big pond of answers to questions. How Joomla sites perform on Amigas, I must admit that I don't have the answer. For sure, you'll need a browser that's capable of understanding CSS so that would limit it to OWB I guess.

[pVC]

Hans_ wrote:

Amiga OS 4, MorphOS and AROS users all have CSS capable browsers. IIRC, there is an older version of OWB compiled for 68k machines.

CSS capable bworser ports might come usable some day on next generation machines, but for 68k it's very unlikely. It would need browser written from scratch and we've seen how likeky that is.... not sure how the speed would be even then.

Current version of OWB for 68k is just unusable. No GUI at all, url must be given in command line, and what's worst, rendering one page can take roughly 10 minutes on overclocked 060. GUI can be improved, but for bloated not so cleverly written engines you probably can't do much. They simply aren't designed for low end cpu:s.

[motorollin]

I'm all for the change Wayne, if it helps the site to carry on. There are just two things that concern me:

1. Availability of the old data
2. Preservation of accounts
a. To ensure everyone keeps their own username without it being hijacked
b. To keep post counts - yes it's childish, but you know, a high post count is a badge of honour on this site ;-)

Whatever happens, thanks for doing what's best for the site.

--
moto

[wolfchild]

Some time ago we had a requirement for a CMS for use in an intranet at work.  We evaluated several and settled on using drupal.  When you dig deep, drupal comes ahead of all the other free CMS offerings.

I think that through a Drupal theme it's possible to create a new feature rich site, yet still classic browser compatible.  These two themes are proof to this concept, aimed at mobile phone limited browsers:
http://drupal.org/project/mobile
http://drupal.org/project/mobi

Maybe the suggestion made previously of having two sites, one for classic and another for modern browsers would be a good idea.  Both could be served by drupal, but using different themes.

Just my 2cents.

Cheers!
Edwin

[Hans_]

pVC wrote:
Current version of OWB for 68k is just unusable. No GUI at all, url must be given in command line, and what's worst, rendering one page can take roughly 10 minutes on overclocked 060. GUI can be improved, but for bloated not so cleverly written engines you probably can't do much. They simply aren't designed for low end cpu:s.

The speed of the OS4 version has improved a lot since the 68k port was made. I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.

Hans

[pVC]

Hans_ wrote:

The speed of the OS4 version has improved a lot since the 68k port was made. I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.

But even if it get 10x faster, it would be way too slow still

DiskDoctor wrote:
You mean down for mobile?  Or you just simple feel kindda bored?

I mean, -- with all intended respect -- it's getting kinda old to hear every other post on the subject of redoing Amiga.org to be:

"mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile.".

Yes.  We know.  You want a mobile site.  I get it.  Enough already.  

PLEASE -- Let's see what we can do about saving the site itself before we concentrate solely on a feature that all of 5 people might, or might not use please?

Wayne

[DiskDoctor]

@ Wayne

Wayne wrote:

DiskDoctor wrote:
You mean down for mobile?  Or you just simple feel kindda bored?

I mean, -- with all intended respect -- it's getting kinda old to hear every other post on the subject of redoing Amiga.org to be:

"mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile, mobile.".

Yes.  We know.  You want a mobile site.  I get it.  Enough already.  

PLEASE -- Let's see what we can do about saving the site itself before we concentrate solely on a feature that all of 5 people might, or might not use please?

Wayne

You misunderstood.

This topic is about web system's transition.  Nothing more.  By mentioning the m-word,  I entirely meant mobile rendering for classic, not mobile rendering for mobile.  Just as means to achieve classic compliance.

As I posted in Any webpage on ANY amiga browser thread already, I think mobile rendering is a possible out-of-the-box workaround to guarantee classic support after your planned transition.

Maybe I wrote somewhere I wished there was mobile.aorg site, but hey, I'm reading/posting on mobile sometimes and it feels great already!  I want NO change thereafter (since a guy helped me out on it with my HTC phone)  I do not state mobile aorg version is needed anymore.  Especially on this very thread.

All I wanted to quote in my previous posts is that mobile CMS infrastructure provides a way to isolate and serve classic browsers properly.

My personal opinion is that new aorg site should indeed, support classics, for sake of preservation.  But as I said, no one wants your time wasted on it.

Whatever way it is, mobile rendering, smoothing proxy or any other (including classic abandonment), it is you who decides here.  You wanted opinion, you got my opinion, that's all.

DiskDoctor wrote:
You misunderstood.

If that's the case, I apologize.  I'm just perplexed over which direction to go in, and seem to have several people mentioning mobile.amiga.org repeatedly, which has my ears ringing unnecessarily. I'm not opposed to creating a site for mobile users.  

I'm just pondering the bigger picture of how to best move forward to embrace the most people without angering the few zealot diehards in our midst.

E-mails I've received on the subject have seemingly been far more "screw the past, move forward".

Whatever format we decide to output aside, I just can't help thinking this site would be much more useful if EACH of you could set up your own working groups, establish friends lists, and that sort of thing to actually work on different Amiga-related projects.

... or has this community gotten to the point where everyone's more worried about saving the past than moving their hobby forward?

Wayne

see poll.

Understand poll is not fair, nor does it indicate real choices.  I'm just very interested in why you feel one way or another *if* those were your only choices.

Wayne

[brianb]

That is a tough poll question, and the wording made me pick the option I didn't originally like.  

But to sacrifice all this great information/knowledge in discussion boards so we can move the Amiga platform forward I had to go with preserve.  

What is forward on the Amiga platform?  What is to move forward?   This is a niche hobby market at best, with a dwindling user base.   The only "forward" I see on the horizon is the recent growth in hardware (FPGA) based Amiga emulators.   There will be no killer-app, revolutionary hardware, etc. just people a little nostalgic for the good 'ol days of computing.

brianb wrote:
What is forward on the Amiga platform?  What is to move forward?   This is a niche hobby market at best, with a dwindling user base.

Agreed, and a great point which brings up another.  If we agree on the above, and at least I do, then you have to ask yourself "what's the point?".  Less vaguely asked, why go to the (potentially several) hundred hours of so work required to change the site over once it no longer works?

I've seen the community that uses this web site dwindle from thousands per hour, to barely enough to qualify "hundreds" and most of those, the same people.

Rather disheartening really to think what Gateway > Escom > Amiga Inc (and Genesi helped) screwed up.

Wayne

[Matt_H]

Time for my $0.02.

From reading so far, it seems like a given that the current archive of threads/images/etc. will be migrated to the new system, or at least preserved in a read-only capacity. That's the most important part of the transition, I think, so as long as that happens I'll be happy as a clam.

I do visit the site with IBrowse, but not exclusively, so I wouldn't be "locked out" with any CSS additions. That being said, it would be nice for the site to "function" (I.E., read and write posts) with IBrowse, even if it doesn't look good. Sometimes it's quicker to deal with IBrowse's limitations than to boot up another machine.

Regarding improvements, I would *love* to see a bounties module for OS3.x projects. I suspect that the majority of Amiga users still don't use OS4, MorphOS, or AROS, so for everyone still on classics and WinUAE (the easiest way to get into the platform), bounties might be a good way to extend the life of the classics. For me, pushing the machines farther than they were ever expected to go is part of the fun of the Amiga. It would also reaffirm community support for developers.

I'm also evaluating CMSes at the moment (albeit for a much, much smaller [non-Amiga] project), so I appreciate the challenges you're facing, Wayne. Thanks for the opportunity to chime in, and I'm looking forward to the end result.

[brianb]

Wayne wrote:

Less vaguely asked, why go to the (potentially several) hundred hours of so work required to change the site over once it no longer works?

I've seen the community that uses this web site dwindle from thousands per hour, to barely enough to qualify "hundreds" and most of those, the same people.

Well faced with those hard facts, it certainly doesn't make much sense.  (sadly)   Although I'd hate to see the site go, and appreciate the work you have put into it.   I can certainly understand your dilemma...  

If you nuked the current site, and started from scratch would there be anyway to make an archive of the original site available?  Even if not in a pretty form, but the raw data from the discussion boards?  Cause your easiest path, would be to start new (burn and rebuild) and if possible offer an archive download (even if it's some kind of HTML dump) option.  Just a thought...