Joomla
Osiris
about this topic is still in guarded forums.
It is time for some public Joomla groups.
That way users/designers can profit from the speed of Usenet.
The proposed goups shoud concern themselves wit all aspects of the use
of Joomla, Joomla components, modules etc from a designers perspective
and a user/admin perspective.
For now, I propose the groups:
nl.joomla (dutch language)
comp.joomla (other languages)
Any suggestions ?
Erik
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>the Joomla CMS is taking off in popularity. Most of the discussion
>about this topic is still in guarded forums.
>It is time for some public Joomla groups.
>That way users/designers can profit from the speed of Usenet.
>The proposed groups shoud concern themselves with all aspects of the use
>of Joomla, Joomla components, modules etc from a designers perspective
>and a user/admin perspective.
>For now, I propose the groups:
>nl.joomla (dutch language)
>comp.joomla (other languages)
>Any suggestions ?
It sounds like a good idea.
The name for the comp.* hierarchy needs work, I think.
To my unskilled eye, it might belong somewhere in this group:
comp.infosystems.www.advocacy Comments and arguments over the best and worst.
comp.infosystems.www.announce World-Wide Web announcements. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi CGI Programming. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Writing HTML for the Web.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.images Using images, imagemaps on the Web.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc Miscellaneous Web authoring issues.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Web site design philosophy.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Layout/presentation on the WWW.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools Programs to help authoring Websites.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.mac Web browsers for the Macintosh platform.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc Web browsers for other platforms.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows Web browsers for MS Windows.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x Web browsers for the X-Window system.
comp.infosystems.www.databases Web Database Integration.
comp.infosystems.www.misc Miscellaneous World Wide Web discussion.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.mac Web servers for the Macintosh platform.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.misc Web servers for other platforms.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows Web servers for MS Windows and NT.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix Web servers for UNIX platforms.
I'm sure others will have other suggestions.
While thinking about that, you might also want to browse
the current creation guidelines:
http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:creation
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB).
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.
Unless otherwise indicated, I am speaking for myself,
not for the Board.
Tim Skirvin
>> the Joomla CMS is taking off in popularity. Most of the discussion
>> about this topic is still in guarded forums.
> I'm sure others will have other suggestions.
soc.web.forum.joomla ? (I don't know what Joomla is, but that
seems to describe its purpose a bit.)
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Tim Skirvin
>>> the Joomla CMS is taking off in popularity. Most of the discussion
>>> about this topic is still in guarded forums.
>> I'm sure others will have other suggestions.
> soc.web.forum.joomla ? (I don't know what Joomla is, but that
> seems to describe its purpose a bit.)
Nevermind, that doesn't fit at all. If we really are talking
about a technology, comp.* is probably best.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<tskirvin.20061210152022$08...@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu>:
> ... If we really are talking
>about a technology, comp.* is probably best.
From a quick look this morning before I headed out
to St. Al's, it looks like a high-level system
for managing a web site--probably a lot like
a wiki in the abstract:
Their category for the software is "content
management systems."
CMS has an entry in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system
Joomla is GPL open-source. Looks like it uses
PHP and MySQL and does what a wiki does: lets
a large group of people work on a website
cooperatively.
Joomla developed out of Mambo, they say.
Another site has got a bunch of wikis under
their cms demo menu:
Looks like good stuff to me.
Given our current taxonomy, it looks to me as though
it would go in here:
comp.infosystems.www.advocacy Comments and arguments over the best and worst.
comp.infosystems.www.announce World-Wide Web announcements. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi CGI Programming. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Writing HTML for the Web.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cms.joomla Users, advocates, critics
That's 73 characters, I think.
Alternatively, if people were willing to break the old
pattern:
comp.cms.joomla 123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*123456
That allows 56 characters for a better description.
".cms" could be thought of as on par with ".lang". It looks
to me as though it is a well-established term of art and it
seems to describe a whole world of www authoring systems.
Looks to me like a comp.cms.advocacy group might go along
with comp.cms.joomla. There are quite a few advocacy groups
on the list now:
comp.infosystems.www.advocacy Comments and arguments over the best and worst.
comp.lang.java.advocacy Support for and criticism of the Java System.
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.advocacy Contentious issues related to Delphi.
comp.lang.smalltalk.advocacy Discussion of Smalltalk Language pros/cons.
comp.os.linux.advocacy Benefits of Linux compared to other operating systems.
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Speculation and debate about Microsoft Windows.
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Windows NT advocacy arguments.
comp.os.os2.advocacy Supporting and flaming OS/2.
comp.sys.acorn.advocacy Why Acorn computers and programs are better.
comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Why an Amiga is better than XYZ.
comp.sys.atari.advocacy Attacking and defending Atari computers.
comp.sys.be.advocacy Why BeOS is better/worse than XYZ.
comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.advocacy Advocacy for a particular soundcard.
comp.sys.mac.advocacy The Macintosh computer family compared to others.
comp.sys.net-computer.advocacy Relative merits of Network Computers.
comp.sys.next.advocacy The NeXT religion.
comp.sys.powerpc.advocacy Why the PowerPC is Good/Evil (delete one).
comp.unix.advocacy Arguments for and against Unix and Unix versions.
rec.games.frp.advocacy Flames and rebuttals about various role-playing systems.
rec.games.video.advocacy Debate on merits of various video game systems.
rec.video.dvd.advocacy DVD-Video pro/con arguments.
Jim Riley
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:20:20 -0600, tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote in
><tskirvin.20061210152022$08...@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu>:
>
>CMS has an entry in Wikipedia:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system
>Looks like good stuff to me.
>
>Given our current taxonomy, it looks to me as though
>it would go in here:
>
>comp.infosystems.www.advocacy Comments and arguments over the best and worst.
>comp.infosystems.www.announce World-Wide Web announcements. (Moderated)
>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi CGI Programming. (Moderated)
>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Writing HTML for the Web.
>
>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cms.joomla Users, advocates, critics
comp.doc.management?
comp.software.config-mgmt?
>That's 73 characters, I think.
>
>comp.cms.joomla 123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*123456
>
>That allows 56 characters for a better description.
>
>".cms" could be thought of as on par with ".lang". It looks
>to me as though it is a well-established term of art and it
>seems to describe a whole world of www authoring systems.
Or it could stand for Code Management System. Or Conversational
Monitor System (eg VM/CMS)
I think it should be content-management-system or content-mgmt-sys
>Looks to me like a comp.cms.advocacy group might go along
>with comp.cms.joomla. There are quite a few advocacy groups
>on the list now:
Or are they advocating, "Linux is better cuz Joomla runs on it."
Advocacy groups are pretty useless.
--
Jim Riley
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<xR_eh.8440$sf5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>I think it should be content-management-system or content-mgmt-sys
comp.content-mgmt-sys.joomla 123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*12345678
OK. That leaves 48 characters for a description.
>>Looks to me like a comp.cms.advocacy group might go along
>>with comp.cms.joomla. There are quite a few advocacy groups
>>on the list now:
>Or are they advocating, "Linux is better cuz Joomla runs on it."
>Advocacy groups are pretty useless.
OK. I've never read one myself. :o(
Jeremy Nixon
> It sounds like a good idea.
It does? A newsgroup dedicated to a software package no one has ever heard
of? I mean, really, I had to use google to figure out what in the heck he
was talking about. There are similar packages that a lot of people actually
*use* that don't have their own newsgroup.
Such a group would be nearly guaranteed to be DOA.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>> It sounds like a good idea.
>It does? A newsgroup dedicated to a software package no one has ever heard
>of? I mean, really, I had to use google to figure out what in the heck he
>was talking about. There are similar packages that a lot of people actually
>*use* that don't have their own newsgroup.
OK.
I was impressed by the stats on their forum page:
599,080 Posts in 111,965 Topics by 74,417 Members
768 Guests, 85 Users
I suppose there is no reason to believe them.
And, since part of Joomla is hosting forums and the
like, I guess their users (if they exist) would
prefer a Joomla forum to discuss Joomla.
>Such a group would be nearly guaranteed to be DOA.
Fair enough.
Jeremy Nixon
> I was impressed by the stats on their forum page:
>
> 599,080 Posts in 111,965 Topics by 74,417 Members
While those are nice numbers, it doesn't really translate to potential
*Usenet* users. I mean, with numbers like that we'd be looking at an
entire subhierarchy with a few dozen groups! If they all want to move
to Usenet, then that's great, but somehow I doubt it. If so, let's
hear about it...
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Osiris
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:20:20 -0600, tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) wrote in
><tskirvin.20061210152022$08...@cairo.ks.uiuc.edu>:
>
>> ... If we really are talking
>>about a technology, comp.* is probably best.
>
>From a quick look this morning before I headed out
>to St. Al's, it looks like a high-level system
>for managing a web site--probably a lot like
>a wiki in the abstract:
>
>http://www.joomla.org/
>
>Their category for the software is "content
>management systems."
Joomla is just that: a CMS.
>
>CMS has an entry in Wikipedia:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system
>
>Joomla is GPL open-source. Looks like it uses
>PHP and MySQL and does what a wiki does: lets
>a large group of people work on a website
>cooperatively.
>
PHP and MySQL yes, but not for a large group to work on a site.
You build a site with the backend and have "users" fill it with
content.
Users need no HTML etc.
>Joomla developed out of Mambo, they say.
>
true
>Another site has got a bunch of wikis under
>their cms demo menu:
>
>http://www.opensourcecms.com/
>
>Looks like good stuff to me.
>
>Given our current taxonomy, it looks to me as though
>it would go in here:
>
>comp.infosystems.www.advocacy Comments and arguments over the best and worst.
>comp.infosystems.www.announce World-Wide Web announcements. (Moderated)
>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi CGI Programming. (Moderated)
>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Writing HTML for the Web.
>
>comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cms.joomla Users, advocates, critics
>
>That's 73 characters, I think.
>
Joomla is about building and maintaining content of sites.
it's more tech than just "advocacy".
Content management with Joomla can be done by non-programmers, but
setting up the Joomla skeleton of a site is programmers' work.
>Alternatively, if people were willing to break the old
>pattern:
>
>comp.cms.joomla 123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*123456
>
maybe CMS must be seen as a "new" discipline indeed....
Osiris
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:19:25 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in
><xR_eh.8440$sf5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>>I think it should be content-management-system or content-mgmt-sys
>
>comp.content-mgmt-sys.joomla 123456789*123456789*123456789*123456789*12345678
CMS is a well know acronym (? that english ?) in this nook or cranny
of computer world.
Osiris
No, it's not advocacy. It's rather tech from the design perspective,
Hoping it is non-tech from the user-perspective.
Jeremy Nixon
> ".cms" could be thought of as on par with ".lang". It looks
> to me as though it is a well-established term of art and it
> seems to describe a whole world of www authoring systems.
More than just www, probably. But wouldn't it go under comp.infosystems.*?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Osiris
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:03:44 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in <12np4ig...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>> It sounds like a good idea.
>
>>It does? A newsgroup dedicated to a software package no one has ever heard
>>of? I mean, really, I had to use google to figure out what in the heck he
>>was talking about. There are similar packages that a lot of people actually
>>*use* that don't have their own newsgroup.
>
>OK.
>
>I was impressed by the stats on their forum page:
>
>599,080 Posts in 111,965 Topics by 74,417 Members
>
>768 Guests, 85 Users
>
>I suppose there is no reason to believe them.
>
>And, since part of Joomla is hosting forums and the
>like, I guess their users (if they exist) would
>prefer a Joomla forum to discuss Joomla.
>
>>Such a group would be nearly guaranteed to be DOA.
>
>Fair enough.
>
> Marty
I don't think so. I got into CMS's some time ago and Joomla, a Public
Domain offspring from Mambo, is really taking off.
It's still young and in full developement. Taht alone should justify a
group.
There are some forums yes. But a usenet group is more accessible. No
logins, memberships etc.
A usenet group would help to open up the initiatives even more.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>CMS is a well know acronym (? that english ?) in this nook or cranny
>of computer world.
Yes, you're using acronym correctly in English.
Unfortunately, Jim showed that there are at least two
other "CMS" acronyms, hence his suggestion for a longer
component.
Osiris
wrote:
Development for the Joomla system is done in PHP and MySQL, so that is
covered in other groups.
However, the glueing together of these aspect is specific, and
discussion about the development of Joomla has, in my opinion, no
place in these groups.
Joomla is not a language. It is also more that just a package.
It is a system to make sites.
You could compare it to Autocad/drawing or MSWord/typing...
Joomla/sitemaking
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>> I was impressed by the stats on their forum page:
>> 599,080 Posts in 111,965 Topics by 74,417 Members
>While those are nice numbers, it doesn't really translate to potential
>*Usenet* users.
Agreed.
> ..If they all want to move
>to Usenet, then that's great, but somehow I doubt it.
I doubt it, too. The whole point (if I understand what
Osiris was saying) is that users fill up the sites with
content.
So, there isn't any hope of moving "all" of them
over to Usenet.
The big question (apart from the name/hierarchy issues) is
whether there is a core of Joomla techs and/or users who
would keep a Usenet group alive.
>If so, let's
>hear about it...
Agreed.
This is a case where collecting feedback from Usenet
would be important. Joomla seems to be all about
web sites and web forums.
I like the fact that it's open source. I don't know
whether that's enough of a common culture to unite
them with Usenet, but it seems to me to be a point
in favor of the proposal--as opposed to some
commercial software packages like these:
comp.cad.autocad AutoDesk's AutoCAD software.
comp.cad.cadence Users of Cadence Design Systems products.
comp.cad.compass Compass Design Automation EDA tools.
comp.cad.i-deas SDRC I-DEAS Masters Series software.
comp.cad.microstation MicroStation CAD software and related products.
comp.cad.microstation.programmer Developing software in Microstation CAD.
comp.cad.pro-engineer Parametric Technology's Pro/Engineer design package.
comp.cad.solidworks SolidWorks newsgroup.
Osiris
>
>This is a case where collecting feedback from Usenet
>would be important. Joomla seems to be all about
>web sites and web forums.
>
Websites yes.
The nice thing is, that with Joomla, you can very easily add
functionality to sites: from a forum to photo galleries and web shops
with pay facilities.
And I mean easily: really with a few clicks.
There is a lively community writing new components to the system.
It goes way farther than just static content sites.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>> ".cms" could be thought of as on par with ".lang". ...
>More than just www, probably. But wouldn't it go under comp.infosystems.*?
Yes, I think that's where it would go if we stuck to the
pattern already established:
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi CGI Programming. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Writing HTML for the Web.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.images Using images, imagemaps on the Web.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc Miscellaneous Web authoring issues.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Web site design philosophy.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Layout/presentation on the WWW.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools Programs to help authoring Websites.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.joomla?
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools.joomla?
The reason I was scrounging around for something like
".lang" (.cms or .content-mgmt-sys) was so that it wouldn't
be buried so deeply under .infosystems.www.authoring.
All that said, it just may not have many Usenet supporters.
Osiris
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:47:25 +0100, Osiris <no...@hotmail.com> wrote in <d27pn21c87vk5s6lj...@4ax.com>:
>
>>CMS is a well know acronym (? that english ?) in this nook or cranny
>>of computer world.
>
>Yes, you're using acronym correctly in English.
>
>Unfortunately, Jim showed that there are at least two
>other "CMS" acronyms, hence his suggestion for a longer
>component.
>
> Marty
Hm, I see mo .cms. in groupnames... ?
maybe ____ .www.cms.joomla ?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:03:44 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in <12np4ig...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>>Such a group would be nearly guaranteed to be DOA.
...
>I don't think so.
Either you or Jeremy may be right.
What could tip the scales in your favor would be
to get folks to post to news.groups or news.groups.proposals
(if and when you write a formal RFD that gets published
in n.a.n.) that they want to USE the group themselves.
>I got into CMS's some time ago and Joomla, a Public
>Domain offspring from Mambo, is really taking off.
>It's still young and in full developement. That alone should justify a
>group.
I sure got excited about it just browsing two web sites
this morning. It could be useful for some stuff I'm
interested in. BUT the big question is how many of
the Joomla people know that Usenet exists, know how
to access it, and are willing to demonstrate their
commitment to the proposal.
>There are some forums yes. But a usenet group is more accessible. No
>logins, memberships etc.
Yes, I like Usenet a lot for those reasons. And having
Google archiving the information makes Usenet even more
attractive. It's a great ... uh ... "thing" or "system"
or "phenomenon."
>A usenet group would help to open up the initiatives even more.
A successful usenet group would help.
A dead group would not help.
A newsgroup with no news is no fun.
What you need is a bunch of people on your side
who know both Joomla and Usenet.
Everything else can be worked out eventually.
Steve Bonine
> And, since part of Joomla is hosting forums and the
> like, I guess their users (if they exist) would
> prefer a Joomla forum to discuss Joomla.
After reading the thread to this point, I went back to this early
comment. I think it is the most significant.
Jeremy Nixon
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.joomla?
>
> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools.joomla?
Either of those could work. But my thought is that we don't even have a
*general* group for this sort of thing. I've actually had things to post
about various web-authoring frameworks and had nowhere in Usenet that
was appropriate for it.
The last time I decided that what I was using was All Wrong and went
shopping for a tool like this to start using, I dug around for a while,
and I've still never heard of Joomla. Nothing I thought of to search
on, and no comments I read, mentioned it. I'd never heard of it until
this very thread.
However, content management and web development frameworks of the type
that allow non-programmers to do site work are pretty big, and we have
*nowhere* to discuss them.
I'm not even sure they belong under "www". They're used for more than
that. Some of them are specifically made to allow people to generate
content for multiple media.
comp.infosystems.cms?
That opens up the possibility of a subhierarchy. Of course, that's not
what we have a proponent for, but I would sure love to see it.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jeremy Nixon
> That opens up the possibility of a subhierarchy. Of course, that's not
> what we have a proponent for, but I would sure love to see it.
Another thought -- should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Hm, I see mo .cms. in groupnames... ?
True.
>maybe ____ .www.cms.joomla ?
comp.infosystems.www.cms.joomla?
Or are you thinking of something else as
the prefix?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.joomla?
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools.joomla?
...
>comp.infosystems.cms?
I like the look of that myself.
Others with different tastes may not go for it.
>That opens up the possibility of a subhierarchy. Of course, that's not
>what we have a proponent for, but I would sure love to see it.
If there was a general group, its description could disambiguate
the meaning of cms.
Does the generic group have to be created first and
then later c.i.cms.joomla? Or are you OK with starting
with the specific group and waiting to see if a proponent
comes along for the generic group?
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
I think Joomla is an application that happens to be
written in PHP and that uses MySQL.
It's not a language in itself.
It's a system, I think.
Ah--maybe I didn't understand. Is it appropriate
to put applications written in a language under
the language itself?
I don't see that pattern in the comp.lang hierarchy.
Jeremy Nixon
> Does the generic group have to be created first and
> then later c.i.cms.joomla? Or are you OK with starting
> with the specific group and waiting to see if a proponent
> comes along for the generic group?
Given interest for the specific group (which remains to be seen), I
wouldn't have a problem starting there, no.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jeremy Nixon
>> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
>
> I think Joomla is an application that happens to be
> written in PHP and that uses MySQL.
I think the development side would be done using PHP; in other words, that
it's not an application that happens to be written in PHP, but rather a
platform for PHP-based development. Sort of like Ruby on Rails, only
this one sounds a bit higher-level than that, in that content production
is inherently supported.
That is to say, the developers using the thing are writing PHP, even though
their ultimate users producing the content aren't.
I may be wrong, but that's what I got from skimming the site. If it's just
an application in PHP, and people using it don't have to care about PHP,
then I agree with you.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Steve Bonine
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:11:11 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in <12npc1f...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>comp.infosystems.cms?
>
> I like the look of that myself.
or comp.infosystems.change-management or .chng-mngt (altho I really
don't think that anyone's likely to cofuse it with the operating system
these days)
>>That opens up the possibility of a subhierarchy. Of course, that's not
>>what we have a proponent for, but I would sure love to see it.
> Does the generic group have to be created first and
> then later c.i.cms.joomla? Or are you OK with starting
> with the specific group and waiting to see if a proponent
> comes along for the generic group?
I'd rather see the generic group created first. I think there's enough
potential traffic for a cms group, but I doubt that there is enough for
a specific group on any one cms system. Creating the generic group
gives proponent(s) for specific system(s) real traffic stats to justify
a more-specific group.
Jonathan Kamens
>or comp.infosystems.change-management or .chng-mngt (altho I really
>don't think that anyone's likely to cofuse it with the operating system
>these days)
It's CONTENT management, not change management.
Personally, I think "comp.infosystems.cms" is just fine and won't be
misunderstood by any of the people working in the space. I don't
think we need to spell it out.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
Osiris
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:29:44 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in <12npgko...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
>
>I think Joomla is an application that happens to be
>written in PHP and that uses MySQL.
>
>It's not a language in itself.
>
no, not a language.
It uses PHP, is written mainly in PHP, and so the code is accessible
to the joomla-designer.
>It's a system, I think.
yes, to build and maintain sites.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>>> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
>I think the development side would be done using PHP; in other words, that
>it's not an application that happens to be written in PHP, but rather a
>platform for PHP-based development.
From Wikipedia:
============ quote ==============
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla
Joomla! is a free, open source content management system written with PHP
for publishing content on the world wide web and intranets using a MySQL
database. Joomla! includes features such as page caching to improve
performance, web indexing, RSS feeds, printable versions of pages, news
flashes, blogs, forums, polls, calendars, website searching, and language
internationalization.
The name is a phonetic spelling of the Swahili word jumla meaning "all
together" or "as a whole". It was chosen to reflect the commitment of the
development team and community to the project. The first release of
Joomla! (Joomla! 1.0.0) was announced on September 16, 2005. This was a
re-branded release of Mambo 4.5.2.3 combined with other bug and moderate-
level security fixes. In the project's roadmap, the core developers say
Joomla! 1.5 will be a completely re-written code base built with PHP 5.
============ end quote ==============
It seems to me as though there are three different levels
in the Joomla world:
1. PHP programmers who can revise Joomla itself by
changing the modules or writing new modules. I don't
think Joomla is any help here. It's not like using
Delphi to create a .NET application.
2. Site managers who choose Joomla as the framework
for content development. If all the modules they
choose are well-written, the site managers don't have
to know PHP. They just follow installation instructions
and leave the source code alone.
3. Site participants who register and add content to the
site dynamically. They don't have to know anything at
all about Joomla or PHP (except, perhaps, a few simple
syntax or linking rules).
> Sort of like Ruby on Rails, only
>this one sounds a bit higher-level than that, in that content production
>is inherently supported.
Looks like Ruby on Rails wants to make it easy for
site visitors to get stuff out of a database.
The database underneath Joomla is for storage of
user input, I think.
>That is to say, the developers using the thing are writing PHP, even though
>their ultimate users producing the content aren't.
I think you're right. In that sense, it is like
RoR.
Doug McLaren
Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
| > That opens up the possibility of a subhierarchy. Of course, that's not
| > what we have a proponent for, but I would sure love to see it.
|
| Another thought -- should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
I'd say no. For example, if a group were to be created to discuss
Zope, another open source content management system (but written in
Python), it ought to sit right next to Joomla, assuming that I
understand properly what both projects do.
So I'd suggest comp.infosystems.cms.joomla or something similar.
There's really a large number of CMS systems out there. This site
gives a list --
Most of the more popular ones already have web forums up because 1)
while CMS doesn't have to mean `web', it often does, and 2) creating
groups in Usenet has been incredibly difficult in the past, and 3)
forums offer far greater control to the owners of the forums, and this
is often very important to people.
Osiris, what is your connection to Joomla and Mambo? I ask, because
you've made a few curious statements, such as this one --
I don't think so. I got into CMS's some time ago and Joomla, a Public
Domain offspring from Mambo, is really taking off. It's still young
and in full developement. Taht alone should justify a group.
... which doesn't sound like the statement of somebody who's just a
satisfied user. Now, even if you do work for Mambo or are a developer
of Joomla, I don't think that would detract from your proposal (which
I think has merit), but it still may make people wonder what your
motives are.
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzied.us
An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made
in a very narrow field. --Niels Bohr
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<pEkfh.7806$qp1....@tornado.texas.rr.com>:
> ... if a group were to be created to discuss
>Zope, another open source content management system (but written in
>Python), it ought to sit right next to Joomla, assuming that I
>understand properly what both projects do.
cms seems to be just part of Zope. It seems to be a server as well.
>So I'd suggest comp.infosystems.cms.joomla or something similar.
I like that suggestion.
>There's really a large number of CMS systems out there. This site
>gives a list --
Unbelievable! That IS a large number!
Zope isn't on the list. Some wikis are, some
aren't.
> ... Now, even if you do work for Mambo or are a developer
>of Joomla, I don't think that would detract from your proposal (which
>I think has merit), but it still may make people wonder what your
>motives are.
There was a hostile split between Mambo and Joomla (technically,
Joomla!). There could still be hurt feelings and high passions
a year later.
None of which are directly relevant to the proposal IF
there is a core of Joomla users who want a Usenet group
instead of a Joomla forum to talk about things.
Osiris
I do not work for mambo.
I am a software developer, site maker.
I am self-employed.
I think Joomla is important, and use and development should benefit
from the possibilities of Usenet
Big-8 CEO
>Hm, I see mo .cms. in groupnames... ?
True.
>maybe ____ .www.cms.joomla ?
comp.infosystems.www.cms.joomla?
Or are you thinking of something else as
the prefix?
Milton
--
Member of the Righteous-8 Queen Rule (Principle).
See http://www.dark-8.org for total expertise.
Unless otherwise beheaded, I am speaking for myself,
not for the Skull and Bombs.
Big-8 CEO
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.joomla?
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools.joomla?
...
>comp.infosystems.cms?
I like the shut up of that myself.
Others with mealy tastes may not go for it.
>That opens up the possibility of a subhierarchy. Of course, that's not
>what we have a proponent for, but I would sure love to see it.
If there was a hornless campaign, its dictate could disambiguate
the substitute of cms.
Does the generic trip have to be hammered first and
then later c.i.cms.joomla? Or are you OK with starting
with the Aryan armor and waiting to see if a lion
comes along for the generic armor?
Perry
--
Member of the Stoned-8 Defense Defense (Knights Templar).
See http://www.Biorobotic-8.org for dry warfare.
Unless already suckled, I am speaking for myself,
not for the Prime Minister.
Big-8 CEO
> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
I think Joomla is an application that authorizes to be
heavy in PHP and that massages MySQL.
It's not a evil in itself.
It's a abscense, I think.
Ah--maybe I didn't understand. Is it noisy
to put applications noisy in a dictatorship under
the message itself?
I don't see that pattern in the comp.lang outrage.
Edna
--
Member of the Profound-8 Illuminati Principle (Princess).
See http://www.horrendous-8.org for liable confusion.
Unless anywhere ignored, I am speaking for myself,
not for the Association.
Big-8 CEO
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:11:11 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in <12npc1f...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>comp.infosystems.cms?
>
> I like the look of that myself.
or comp.infosystems.brainwash-management or .chng-mngt (altho I rigidly
don't think that anyone's likely to cofuse it with the violating cancellation
these s)
>>That opens up the possibility of a subhierarchy. Of course, that's not
>>what we have a proponent for, but I would sure love to see it.
> Does the generic group have to be created first and
> then later c.i.cms.joomla? Or are you OK with starting
> with the specific group and waiting to see if a proponent
> comes along for the generic group?
I'd rather see the generic disagreement growled first. I think there's enough
potential doldrums for a cms thunder, but I kiss that there is enough for
a silly evil on any one cms advertisement. Creating the generic trick
gives godhead(s) for abysmal version(s) aggravating dust stats to justify
a controversial-screwed up trip.
Big-8 CEO
>or comp.infosystems.change-management or .chng-mngt (altho I really
>don't think that anyone's likely to cofuse it with the operating system
>these days)
It's CONTENT management, not nibble management.
Big-8 CEO
>>> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
>I think the development side would be done using PHP; in other words, that
>it's not an application that happens to be written in PHP, but rather a
>platform for PHP-based development.
From Wikipedia:
============ quote ==============
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joomla
Joomla! is a free, swindle association content management operation systematic with PHP
for confronting content on the world abusive greacy place and intranets dreaming a MySQL
database. Joomla! gorges features such as page caching to disinfect
performance, zipper indexing, RSS feeds, printable diseases of pages, quorum
flashes, blogs, evidences, polls, calendars, website searching, and evil
internationalization.
The consortium is a phonetic spelling of the Swahili conjecture jumla guarantee "all
anymore" or "as a disgusting". It was chosen to reflect the commitment of the
development team and crowd to the project. The first shoot of
Joomla! (Joomla! 1.0.0) was pretended on September 16, 2005. This was a
re-branded punish of Mambo 4.5.2.3 combined with other bug and strike-
domain shitman fixes. In the project's roadmap, the core developers say
Joomla! 1.5 will be a completely re-supposed abandonment base built with PHP 5.
============ end quote ==============
It seems to me as however there are three outrageous privileges
in the Joomla world:
1. PHP thoughtfulnesss who can revise Joomla itself by
undermining the modules or writing new modules. I don't
think Joomla is any sneak here. It's not like disfiguring
Delphi to propagate a .NET application.
2. Site thoughtfulnesss who choose Joomla as the framework
for content development. If all the modules they
choose are well-meagre, the site ass lickers don't have
to know PHP. They just smash installation disagreements
and leave the consortium smog alone.
3. Site substitutes who soak and overwhelm content to the
site dynamically. They don't have to know anything at
all about Joomla or PHP (except, perhaps, a a handful of weird
disinformation or linking messages).
> Sort of like Ruby on Rails, only
>this one sounds a bit higher-level than that, in that content production
>is inherently supported.
Looks like Ruby on Rails complains to make it easy for
site visitors to get stuff out of a database.
The database underneath Joomla is for storage of
moron input, I think.
>That is to say, the developers using the thing are writing PHP, even though
>their ultimate users producing the content aren't.
I think you're right. In that sense, it is like
RoR.
Doris
--
Member of the Mean-8 Minister Knights Templar (Princess).
See http://www.empty-handed-8.org for stupid smog.
Unless otherwise twisted, I am speaking for myself,
not for the Illuminati.
Brian Mailman
> I think Joomla is important, and use and development should benefit
> from the possibilities of Usenet
Where are you discussing this now on Usenet?
B/
Jeremy Nixon
To put it another way (for Osiris): clearly *you* want to discuss this on
Usenet, and that's great; I'd like for you to do so. But is there a portion
of the Joomla community that wants to, also?
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jim Riley
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> writes:
>>or comp.infosystems.change-management or .chng-mngt (altho I really
>>don't think that anyone's likely to cofuse it with the operating system
>>these days)
>
>It's CONTENT management, not change management.
>
>Personally, I think "comp.infosystems.cms" is just fine and won't be
>misunderstood by any of the people working in the space. I don't
>think we need to spell it out.
What kind of content does it manage? Does it belong at the same level
as gopher and www?
--
Jim Riley
Steve Bonine
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:31:33 +0000 (UTC), j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us
> (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>
>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>or comp.infosystems.change-management or .chng-mngt (altho I really
>>>don't think that anyone's likely to cofuse it with the operating system
>>>these days)
>>
>>It's CONTENT management, not change management.
Hey . . . I'll manage change, and you manage content. We'll get to the
same place.
>>Personally, I think "comp.infosystems.cms" is just fine and won't be
>>misunderstood by any of the people working in the space. I don't
>>think we need to spell it out.
I agree.
> What kind of content does it manage? Does it belong at the same level
> as gopher and www?
Web content. My preference would be to see a cms group first and then
if there appears sufficient traffic for specific packages, split it out
into separate groups.
As much as I appreciate Usenet and newsgroups, it seems somewhat
unlikely that people who are actively using and developing a system
that's used to create web sites would flock to Usenet to discuss it.
2Rowdy
entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
<bmai...@sfo.invalid> and I became inspired,
nl.newsgroups
--
^Bd:J0han; Certifiable me^J^Mhttp://2rowdy.aacity.net^J^MTRying to telnet to the server^J^MHope it works this time^J^M^C^D^Y
405 Method Not Allowed
400 Bad Request
Fatal Error, Connection Terminated,,,
[Press ENTER to continue]
Osiris
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:46:26 +0100, Osiris <no...@hotmail.com> wrote in <fgapn21h15ccu1im1...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Hm, I see mo .cms. in groupnames... ?
>
>True.
>
>>maybe ____ .www.cms.joomla ?
>
>comp.infosystems.www.cms.joomla?
what is the idea about "infosystems" ?
bit of a garbage can for everything computer...
What is an infosystem ?
would it not be more logical to have infosystems.comp ?=, because a
computer is just one kind of an infosystem ?
Osiris
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:07:17 GMT, "Doug McLaren" <dougmc+usen...@frenzied.us> wrote in
><pEkfh.7806$qp1....@tornado.texas.rr.com>:
>
>> ... if a group were to be created to discuss
>>Zope, another open source content management system (but written in
>>Python), it ought to sit right next to Joomla, assuming that I
>>understand properly what both projects do.
>
>cms seems to be just part of Zope. It seems to be a server as well.
>
joomla part of Zope ????? what is Zope ??
Jomla is an independent CMS... things are part of Jooomla... not the
other way around...
Osiris
>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:29:44 -0000, Feodor Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in <12npgko...@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
>
>I think Joomla is an application that authorizes to be
>heavy in PHP and that massages MySQL.
>
huh ? what does that mean ?
the relation between php, mySQL and Joomla is, that hte Joomla system
uses PHP to be written in, and that is uses MySQL for it's DBMS
Osiris
John Ashby
Doug introduced Zope, which he called "another content management
system" to look at how the hierarchy should be arranged - it's as if
someone had proposed rec.bmw; by considering groups for mercedes and
audi one can see that rec.cars.{bmw,mercedes,audi} would be the natural
hierarchical grouping. He did not suggest that Zope was related to
zoomla in any other way than that they shared functionality.
Martin then said that cms [not joomla, cms is a generic functionalty,
joomla is a specific instance of it] is just part of zope - in other
words it is only one of several things Zope does. To continue the
analogy, mercedes also make trucks.
john
Osiris
wrote:
>Jim Riley wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:31:33 +0000 (UTC), j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us
>> (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>or comp.infosystems.change-management or .chng-mngt (altho I really
>>>>don't think that anyone's likely to cofuse it with the operating system
>>>>these days)
>>>
>>>It's CONTENT management, not change management.
>
>Hey . . . I'll manage change, and you manage content. We'll get to the
>same place.
>
>>>Personally, I think "comp.infosystems.cms" is just fine and won't be
>>>misunderstood by any of the people working in the space. I don't
>>>think we need to spell it out.
>
>I agree.
>
>> What kind of content does it manage? Does it belong at the same level
>> as gopher and www?
>
>Web content. My preference would be to see a cms group first and then
>if there appears sufficient traffic for specific packages, split it out
>into separate groups.
With Joomla, you define a site: like what functions you want on it (a
forum, fill-in forms, menu-structures, news ticker, newsletter
sending, you name it) and textual and pictorial content.
So it's management in a very broad sense.
.cms could be a solution, but there are many such systems. Maybe the
group would be too broad to be attracting.
Afficionados want their own "clubhouse".
Ok, you don't want one-person clubhouses...
Osiris
wrote:
>I was reading <news:12ns8og...@news.supernews.com>, made by the
>entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
><bmai...@sfo.invalid> and I became inspired,
>
>> Osiris wrote:
>>
>>> I think Joomla is important, and use and development should benefit
>>> from the possibilities of Usenet
>>
>> Where are you discussing this now on Usenet?
>
>nl.newsgroups
and I put out the word on some forums.
2Rowdy
by the entity known as Osiris, that requests spam to be sent to
<no...@hotmail.com> and I became inspired,
So, how many newsgroups do you want?
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me http://2rowdy.aacity.net
They killed the Credo. Viva el Credo!
Osiris
wrote:
>I was reading <news:kb0tn2hnvog6eq9ft...@4ax.com>, made
>by the entity known as Osiris, that requests spam to be sent to
><no...@hotmail.com> and I became inspired,
>
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:08:59 +0100, "2Rowdy" <Harry...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I was reading <news:12ns8og...@news.supernews.com>, made by
>>> the entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent to
>>> <bmai...@sfo.invalid> and I became inspired,
>>>
>>>> Osiris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think Joomla is important, and use and development should
>>>>> benefit from the possibilities of Usenet
>>>>
>>>> Where are you discussing this now on Usenet?
>>>
>>> nl.newsgroups
>>
>> and I put out the word on some forums.
>
>So, how many newsgroups do you want?
Hey, come on ! I'm a humble person: only one.
How many do you want ?
Dave Sill
> On 12 Dec 2006 02:44:30 GMT, c...@big8.orgy (Big-8 CEO) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:29:44 -0000, Feodor Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in <12npgko...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>
>>> ... should we be talking about comp.lang.php.joomla?
>>
>>I think Joomla is an application that authorizes to be
>>heavy in PHP and that massages MySQL.
>>
>
> huh ? what does that mean ?
It's nonsense--randomized gibberish intended to vandalize
news.groups. Ignore "c...@big8.orgy".
-Dave
Steve Bonine
> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>As much as I appreciate Usenet and newsgroups, it seems somewhat
>>unlikely that people who are actively using and developing a system
>>that's used to create web sites would flock to Usenet to discuss it.
>
> Why ?
Technological bias. It's the same trait that causes people here on
Usenet to make statements like "Development of Usenet groups must take
place on Usenet" and complain when they're asked to visit a web site to
obtain information. It does not matter that using email may be
appropriate during proposal discussion or that a web site is the most
efficient way to publish the information; if you're a Usenet lover you
want that information via Usenet.
The users of Joomla are, by definition, predisposed towards web
technology since that's where the system runs. Some of them may also be
active on Usenet and recognize its advantages, but my expectation is
that group is small. I would expect the typical Joomla user to be
predisposed to web-based discussion.
This is only one aspect of the decision-making process in terms of
whether it's appropriate to create a Joomla newsgroup. My current
assessment of the situation is that we have exactly one individual who
thinks that a newsgroup is needed for a new open-source system that is
just beginning to attract users in a market that already has a number of
similar products.
This specific system may be a flash in the pan, but content management
will be with us always.
Jerry Stuckle
>
>
> It does? A newsgroup dedicated to a software package no one has ever heard
> of? I mean, really, I had to use google to figure out what in the heck he
> was talking about. There are similar packages that a lot of people actually
> *use* that don't have their own newsgroup.
>
> Such a group would be nearly guaranteed to be DOA.
>
After reading all the posts in this thread, I'll respond here.
I won't say "no one has ever heard of" Joomla. But certainly it is not
as well known as PHP, MySQL, Perl, etc. And yes, there are thousands of
users registered on their forum. But if there were only one forum on
the entire internet to discuss PHP, MySQL, Perl or others, how many
would be registered? I'd suggest the number would be in the millions.
As it is, I think the Joomla forum does a fine job. I don't participate
there much, but I read a lot. And I really think in this case the users
would prefer the forums.
I also highly suspect the closes most of those who use Joomla have ever
come to Usenet is Google Groups. They wouldn't know the difference
between Usenet and a forum, and not many would want to switch.
So for different reasons I agree with Jeremy - the group would be nearly
guaranteed to be DOA.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>>comp.infosystems.www.cms.joomla?
>what is the idea about "infosystems" ?
>bit of a garbage can for everything computer...
>What is an infosystem ?
The first reference I see to it in google is:
++++++++
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Infosystem for VMS (and others)
Message-ID: <1992Jun5.1...@aragorn.unibe.ch>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 15:16:44 GMT
Hi,
the University of Bern is looking for a infosystem on the network. It should
be a menusystem, run on VMS and give access to information data stored in
pure ASCII text. Priceton University has something like that, but it runs
on VM/CMS.
Thanks for any information
Martin Egger, Ph.D., Computing Services - System and User Support Group
University of Bern,...
++++++++
>would it not be more logical to have infosystems.comp ?=, because a
>computer is just one kind of an infosystem ?
The first component in a newsgroup name establishes the
hierarchy that the group is located in.
If we create infosystem.comp.*, we will add a new hierarchy
to the big-8, and it would then become the big-9, which would
mess up a lot of stuff.
<http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=policies:names&s=naming>
The reason to continue with the archaism of "infosystems"
is that that is where the other things like content
management systems could be found.
I'm not saying "infosystems" is a great word. But it's in
the hierarchy now and it helps to group similar things
together.
Here is the current comp.infosystems.* hierarchy:
comp.infosystems Any discussion about information systems.
comp.infosystems.announce Announcements of internet information services. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.gis All aspects of Geographic Information Systems.
comp.infosystems.gopher Discussion of the Gopher information service.
comp.infosystems.harvest Harvest information discovery and access system.
comp.infosystems.hyperg The Hyper-G network hypermedia system and applications.
comp.infosystems.interpedia The Internet Encyclopedia.
comp.infosystems.intranet Intranet topics.
comp.infosystems.kiosks Informational and transactional kiosks. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.search All aspects of search technology.
comp.infosystems.wais The Z39.50-based WAIS full-text search system.
comp.infosystems.www.advocacy Comments and arguments over the best and worst.
comp.infosystems.www.announce World-Wide Web announcements. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi CGI Programming. (Moderated)
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Writing HTML for the Web.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.images Using images, imagemaps on the Web.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc Miscellaneous Web authoring issues.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design Web site design philosophy.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets Layout/presentation on the WWW.
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.tools Programs to help authoring Websites.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.mac Web browsers for the Macintosh platform.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.misc Web browsers for other platforms.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.ms-windows Web browsers for MS Windows.
comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x Web browsers for the X-Window system.
comp.infosystems.www.databases Web Database Integration.
comp.infosystems.www.misc Miscellaneous World Wide Web discussion.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.mac Web servers for the Macintosh platform.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.misc Web servers for other platforms.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.ms-windows Web servers for MS Windows and NT.
comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix Web servers for UNIX platforms.
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB).
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.
Unless otherwise indicated, I am speaking for myself,
not for the Board.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>>cms seems to be just part of Zope. It seems to be a server as well.
>joomla part of Zope ?????
No. What I said was that doing content management (cms) is just
part of what Zope does.
> what is Zope ??
"Zope is an open source application server for building content management
systems, intranets, portals, and custom applications. The Zope community
consists of hundreds of companies and thousands of developers all over the
world, working on building the platform and Zope applications. Zope is
written in Python, a highly-productive, object-oriented scripting
language."
>Jomla is an independent CMS... things are part of Jooomla... not the
>other way around...
Zope is something like Joomla, in that it does content management,
but unlike Joomla, because it also can act as a server.
In other words, putting Zope in the cms category alone distorts
a proper understanding of Zope.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>>I think Joomla is an application that authorizes to be
>>heavy in PHP and that massages MySQL.
>huh ? what does that mean ?
It means that someone is editing messages as a joke
and posting them to news.groups.
>the relation between php, mySQL and Joomla is, that the Joomla system
>uses PHP to be written in, and that is uses MySQL for its DBMS
Thanks for the clarification.
Marty
--
Member of the Big-8 Management Board (B8MB).
See http://www.big-8.org for more information.
Unless otherwise indicated, I am speaking for myself,
not for the Board.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
<n3qfh.8563$sf5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>>It's CONTENT management, not change management.
>What kind of content does it manage?
Content submitted to web sites by users.
>Does it belong at the same level
>as gopher and www?
No. It is an application environment
that is designed to work under www, not
as a protocol to replace it.
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... Ok, you don't want one-person clubhouses ...
Right.
You need to persuade other Joomla enthusiasts that
Usenet is a great place to discuss Joomla.
They, in turn, need to show up and post here or
in n.g.p. (if you write a formal RFD that gets
posted to news.announce.newsgroups) to demonstrate
that there is a Usenet-savvy group of people who
would want to provide content for the new newsgroup.
A newsgroup with no news (no content) is no fun.
If at all possible, the board would rather add
new newsgroups to the list that we think will have
a chance of being "well-used."
As things stand right now, very early in the game,
it doesn't seem likely that a lot of Joomla
enthusiasts will want to discuss web-based
content management systems on Usenet.
Doug McLaren
Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
| but unlike Joomla, because it also can act as a server.
|
| In other words, putting Zope in the cms category alone distorts
| a proper understanding of Zope.
Many (most?) CMS systems also include a server of sorts -- it's the
nature of the beast. And if you don't get a full fledged server, you
usually get an API of sorts that can be plugged into somebody else's
server.
I haven't really looked through it's documentation, but I'm guessing
that Joomla fits into the latter category. Since it's written in PHP,
you obviously already have a server available if you're using Joomla,
so it's just a matter of using the PHP routines that they almost
certainly offer to access the data that Joomla has managed.
Though perhaps I should have just said the `Zope Content Management
Framework' rather than just Zope. Or any of the many other CMSs out
there.
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzied.us
It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be
coming up it. -- Henry Allen
Dave Sill
> As things stand right now, very early in the game,
> it doesn't seem likely that a lot of Joomla
> enthusiasts will want to discuss web-based
> content management systems on Usenet.
Yes, right now there's no evidence that a critical mass of Usenet
saavy Joomla users exists to support a standalone Joomla group. I'd
much rather see a generic CMS group first. If we do that, and six
mnonths or year from now, we see sufficient Joomla traffic in that
group to warrant a Joomla-specific group, I'd certainly support
creating one.
In general, we want to build the hierachy top down, not bottom up.
I think that the Big 8 should have a place to discuss CMSs, e.g. the
pros and cons of different systems, release announcements, etc. But
I'm skeptical that a Usenet group--even one dedicated to a particular
system--will ever supplant the existing support forums.
-Dave
2Rowdy
<no...@hotmail.com> and I became inspired,
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:36:02 +0100, "2Rowdy" <Harry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I was reading <news:kb0tn2hnvog6eq9ft...@4ax.com>,
>> made by the entity known as Osiris, that requests spam to be sent
>> to <no...@hotmail.com> and I became inspired,
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:08:59 +0100, "2Rowdy"
>>> <Harry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was reading <news:12ns8og...@news.supernews.com>, made by
>>>> the entity known as Brian Mailman, that requests spam to be sent
>>>> to <bmai...@sfo.invalid> and I became inspired,
>>>>
>>>>> Osiris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Joomla is important, and use and development should
>>>>>> benefit from the possibilities of Usenet
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are you discussing this now on Usenet?
>>>>
>>>> nl.newsgroups
>>>
>>> and I put out the word on some forums.
>>
>> So, how many newsgroups do you want?
> Hey, come on ! I'm a humble person: only one.
> How many do you want ?
Liar.
You are trying to create a newsgroup in the Big 8 hierarchy And in the
Dutch (nl.*) hierarchy.
May I remind you that there is also France (fr.*), Germany (de.*),
Italy (it.*), Spain (es.*), etc, etc.
So I repeat, how many empty newsgroups do you want?
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://2rowdy.aacity.net
[sig is lost, please use Google to find it]
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
> ... I'm skeptical that a Usenet group--even one dedicated to a particular
>system--will ever supplant the existing support forums.
I don't think we have to set the bar that high.
I agree completely that no Usenet group will supplant
existing support forums.
The question is whether a Usenet group on the
topic of cms or joomla could get any significant
traffic at all. That's a lot lower target to
aim for--but even that may be unlikely.
Dave Sill
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:52:19 -0500, Dave Sill <d...@big-8.org> wrote in <wx04ps1...@sws5.ornl.gov>:
>
>> ... I'm skeptical that a Usenet group--even one dedicated to a particular
>>system--will ever supplant the existing support forums.
>
> I don't think we have to set the bar that high.
Unless the existing support forums for Joomla are woefully inadequate,
what purpose would a Joomla-specific newsgroup serve?
> The question is whether a Usenet group on the
> topic of cms or joomla could get any significant
> traffic at all. That's a lot lower target to
> aim for--but even that may be unlikely.
I think it's clear that enough people are using CMSs to support a
generic CMS group. And the popularity of CMSs is on the rise.
-Dave
Martin X. Moleski, SJ
>Unless the existing support forums for Joomla are woefully inadequate,
>what purpose would a Joomla-specific newsgroup serve?
Presumably, this is something the (hypothetical) Usenet/Joomla
users would tell us (if they exist).
>> The question is whether a Usenet group on the
>> topic of cms or joomla could get any significant
>> traffic at all. That's a lot lower target to
>> aim for--but even that may be unlikely.
>I think it's clear that enough people are using CMSs to support a
>generic CMS group. And the popularity of CMSs is on the rise.
I was floored by the number of CMSs I saw following
the link someone gave us yesterday.
It is clearly a substantial development.
From working with our wiki, I see why.
Compared to updating my website with Dreamweaver
and FTP, the cms approach is very attractive.
Tim Skirvin
>> As things stand right now, very early in the game,
>> it doesn't seem likely that a lot of Joomla
>> enthusiasts will want to discuss web-based
>> content management systems on Usenet.
> Yes, right now there's no evidence that a critical mass of Usenet
> saavy Joomla users exists to support a standalone Joomla group. I'd
> much rather see a generic CMS group first. If we do that, and six
> mnonths or year from now, we see sufficient Joomla traffic in that
> group to warrant a Joomla-specific group, I'd certainly support
> creating one.
On the other hand, there are probably people that would more
readily come to Usenet to post in a Joomla-specific forum rather than a
generic CMS group. Mailing list gateways come to mind, but that's not the
only way I could see this working.
If Osiris could find committed core of users that really want a
decent place to discuss their software package - development, use,
whatever - then I'd support creating a comp.infosystems.cms.joomla (or
similar), and waiting to create comp.infosystems.cms until later.
> I think that the Big 8 should have a place to discuss CMSs, e.g. the
> pros and cons of different systems, release announcements, etc. But
> I'm skeptical that a Usenet group--even one dedicated to a particular
> system--will ever supplant the existing support forums.
I agree, it probably wouldn't supplant the existing forums, but
it'd be nice to properly supplement them.
- Tim Skirvin (sk...@big-8.org)
--
http://www.big-8.org/ Big-8 Management Board
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
Steve Bonine
> On the other hand, there are probably people that would more
> readily come to Usenet to post in a Joomla-specific forum rather than a
> generic CMS group. Mailing list gateways come to mind, but that's not the
> only way I could see this working.
I'm not refuting your statement, but I don't understand it. The
universe of CMS users is much larger than the universe of Joomla users,
so why do you feel that it's more likely that there would be more Joomla
folks than CMS folks attracted to a Usenet group?
We have a proponent for a Joomla group who is suggesting that potential
participants exist. We don't have a specific proponent for a CMS group,
yet people are suggesting that potential participants exist. That
doesn't say much about what the reality really is on either side.
Tim Skirvin
>> On the other hand, there are probably people that would more
>> readily come to Usenet to post in a Joomla-specific forum rather than a
>> generic CMS group. Mailing list gateways come to mind, but that's not the
>> only way I could see this working.
> I'm not refuting your statement, but I don't understand it. The
> universe of CMS users is much larger than the universe of Joomla users,
> so why do you feel that it's more likely that there would be more Joomla
> folks than CMS folks attracted to a Usenet group?
Based on what I've observed of online fora everywhere, I believe
that there are many people that are willing to discuss specific products
more readily than they are to discuss entire classes of product. For
instance, I think that there are a lot more people that are interested
in discussing TiVo specifically than there are that want to discuss
PVRs as a whole; and more people want to discuss an individual class at
a University than want to discuss the University as a whole. This is
somewhat counter-intuitive, but seems to match what I've seen happening
everywhere.
Why is this? I think that in general it's because you need a
critical mass of interested users to get any forum working, and that
interest is more likely to be found around a specific product than a
general one. People don't go around saying "those cars, they rock!", but
they might well say that about their Mustang, or BMW, or whatever. If you
can get 4-5 interested users to really generate content and care enough to
keep a forum working, you've got a good chance of keeping it running. But
if you only have a few users interested enough to look periodically, your
chances are lower.
Another point: in cases like this, it's easier to advertise to a
more specific audience than to a general one, and it's probably more
appropriate as well.
Finally, if the Joomla developers said "we're going to use a
specific newsgroup to discuss our product from now on", they'd probably
have enough traffic to justify their newsgroup. But I think it'd be a
harder sell to say "we're going to use ?.cms" rather than "?.cms.joomla".
Dave Sill
>
> Based on what I've observed of online fora everywhere, I believe
> that there are many people that are willing to discuss specific products
> more readily than they are to discuss entire classes of product.
Yes, but just because a group is called comp.infosystems.cms doesn't
mean Joomla-specific discussion is off topic. If we create the group
and Joomla users find that there's too much other-CMS talk going on,
then we can create a Joomla-specific group. At this point, that seems
highly unlikely since there doesn't seem to much CMS discussion on
Usenet. Attempting to avoid an unlikely scenario by likely creating
a group with a too-small userbase doesn't sound like recipe for
success.
> Why is this? I think that in general it's because you need a
> critical mass of interested users to get any forum working, and that
> interest is more likely to be found around a specific product than a
> general one. People don't go around saying "those cars, they rock!", but
> they might well say that about their Mustang, or BMW, or whatever.
Right, but you create a .mustang group before you create .mustang.gt,
.mustang.cobra, .mustang.shelby, .mustang.convertible, etc. And you
probably never create .mustang.gt.2006.green because it's too
specific. And if there's no .ford group, why not create it first and
split off the .mustang group only if/when it's necessary?
If 20 or 30 potential users appear and say they'll post to a
Joomla-specific group, then, OK, I *might* go for that. Otherwise, I'm
just not going to go for a more specific group than .cms right off the
bat.
-Dave
Jeremy Nixon
> I'm not refuting your statement, but I don't understand it. The
> universe of CMS users is much larger than the universe of Joomla users,
> so why do you feel that it's more likely that there would be more Joomla
> folks than CMS folks attracted to a Usenet group?
Well, there are precious few "CMS folks". Sure, there are people wondering
what CMS to use, or whatever, but people more often want to talk about
specific things, and by and large they're not going to come to a general
CMS group to do that.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Brian Mailman
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>> Osiris wrote:
>>
>>> I think Joomla is important, and use and development should benefit
>>> from the possibilities of Usenet
>>
>> Where are you discussing this now on Usenet?
>
> To put it another way (for Osiris): clearly *you* want to discuss this on
> Usenet, and that's great; I'd like for you to do so. But is there a portion
> of the Joomla community that wants to, also?
That's where I was going, which would have been the next step.
The one afer that would be "OK, so there's the *.freebsd.* groups. Why
would people move from those?"
B/
Brian Mailman
This isn't an alt.* proposal.
B/, reading from ac
Osiris wrote:
(snip)
Steve Bonine
> Based on what I've observed of online fora everywhere, I believe
> that there are many people that are willing to discuss specific products
> more readily than they are to discuss entire classes of product. For
> instance, I think that there are a lot more people that are interested
> in discussing TiVo specifically than there are that want to discuss
> PVRs as a whole; and more people want to discuss an individual class at
> a University than want to discuss the University as a whole. This is
> somewhat counter-intuitive, but seems to match what I've seen happening
> everywhere.
OK, thanks for explaining. As you say, it's a bit counter-intuitive. I
do see your point.
> Why is this? I think that in general it's because you need a
> critical mass of interested users to get any forum working, and that
> interest is more likely to be found around a specific product than a
> general one. People don't go around saying "those cars, they rock!", but
> they might well say that about their Mustang, or BMW, or whatever.
But you also have another group of users who are trying to decide
whether to buy a Mustang or BMW. This analogy holds for CMS systems
these days. A general CMS group would attract these users in addition
to the advocates of specific groups. It might be that questions like
"Why should I use Joomla" would result in useful discussions. And it
might provide a useful place for someone to obtain information and
comparisons on many different CMS packages, rather than having to visit
a bunch of specific forums to gather the information.
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Jim Riley wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:31:33 +0000 (UTC), j...@kamens.brookline.ma.us
>> (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>>>Personally, I think "comp.infosystems.cms" is just fine and won't be
>>>misunderstood by any of the people working in the space. I don't
>>>think we need to spell it out.
>
>I agree.
>
>> What kind of content does it manage? Does it belong at the same level
>> as gopher and www?
>
>Web content. My preference would be to see a cms group first and then
>if there appears sufficient traffic for specific packages, split it out
>into separate groups.
If it manages web content, shouldn't it be down a level? (eg
comp.infosystems.www.cms.joomla
comp.infosystems.www.cms.misc
>As much as I appreciate Usenet and newsgroups, it seems somewhat
>unlikely that people who are actively using and developing a system
>that's used to create web sites would flock to Usenet to discuss it.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mol...@canisius.edu> writes:
>
>> As things stand right now, very early in the game,
>> it doesn't seem likely that a lot of Joomla
>> enthusiasts will want to discuss web-based
>> content management systems on Usenet.
>
>Yes, right now there's no evidence that a critical mass of Usenet
>saavy Joomla users exists to support a standalone Joomla group. I'd
>much rather see a generic CMS group first. If we do that, and six
>mnonths or year from now, we see sufficient Joomla traffic in that
>group to warrant a Joomla-specific group, I'd certainly support
>creating one.
A group for a specific topic may work better at attracting
participation. People may ask, "How do I do soandso with Joomla?"
rather than more abstract questions such as, "What will a CMS do for
me?"
I'd be more inclined to start two groups:
comp.infosystems.www.cms.joomla and
comp.infosystems.www.cms.misc
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
wrote:
>Tim Skirvin wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, there are probably people that would more
>> readily come to Usenet to post in a Joomla-specific forum rather than a
>> generic CMS group. Mailing list gateways come to mind, but that's not the
>> only way I could see this working.
>
>I'm not refuting your statement, but I don't understand it. The
>universe of CMS users is much larger than the universe of Joomla users,
>so why do you feel that it's more likely that there would be more Joomla
>folks than CMS folks attracted to a Usenet group?
How many of them use multiple CMS's?
It may simply not occur to people that they can ask a question about a
specific product in a more generic group.
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
>tski...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>>
>> Based on what I've observed of online fora everywhere, I believe
>> that there are many people that are willing to discuss specific products
>> more readily than they are to discuss entire classes of product.
>
>Yes, but just because a group is called comp.infosystems.cms doesn't
>mean Joomla-specific discussion is off topic.
But to many people, it may not be obvious that it is on topic. If
people are also discussing the relative merits of different CMS
products - it may simply not occur to them that they can ask specific
questions about a single one of them.
>Right, but you create a .mustang group before you create .mustang.gt,
>.mustang.cobra, .mustang.shelby, .mustang.convertible, etc. And you
>probably never create .mustang.gt.2006.green because it's too
>specific. And if there's no .ford group, why not create it first and
>split off the .mustang group only if/when it's necessary?
People might discuss Tauruses or Escorts in a ".ford" group. They
would be less likely to discuss Mustangs. The same would apply to
Corvette discussion in a Chevrolet or GM group.
--
Jim Riley
Osiris
<dougmc+usen...@frenzied.us> wrote:
>In article <12nth05...@news.supernews.com>,
>Martin X. Moleski, SJ <mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>
>| but unlike Joomla, because it also can act as a server.
>|
>| In other words, putting Zope in the cms category alone distorts
>| a proper understanding of Zope.
>
>Many (most?) CMS systems also include a server of sorts -- it's the
>nature of the beast. And if you don't get a full fledged server, you
>usually get an API of sorts that can be plugged into somebody else's
>server.
>
Joomla uses server programs, like Apache (complemented with PHP) and,
I think, IIS.
Osiris
>You are trying to create a newsgroup in the Big 8 hierarchy And in the
>Dutch (nl.*) hierarchy.
>May I remind you that there is also France (fr.*), Germany (de.*),
>Italy (it.*), Spain (es.*), etc, etc.
>So I repeat, how many empty newsgroups do you want?
Sorry, true.
However, the discussion about a general group is conducted here.
Dutch language specific goroups are discussed, not here, but in the
nl. group.
These two discussions are, I think, totally independent.
Of course there are may people for whom english is only the second
language and for whom english would be a barrier.
That's why I thoink, the discussion should be started in nl. too.
totally consistent with this separation, I did not mention my thread
in the nl. group here and I said I wanted only one. if that makes me a
liar, considering the above, ok, have fun with being right.
Osiris
wrote:
hm, this thread is developing into a marketing discussion.
Or is there a new branch of sociology emerging ?
How many people would there be that searched for a Joomla newsgroup,
not find it and sidestep to a forum ?
On the forums I see posts that scream for Usenet...
We have to see...
Osiris
<bobof...@127.0.0.7> wrote:
>sets and subsets.
>
>CMS has a subset called Joomla. There are also other subsets of
>CMS... Zome was one IIRC... so the naming of the group should go from
>general to specific
>
>comp > info systems/Content managment system> actual enviroment...
>
>Comp.is.cms.joomla
>Comp.is.cms.next-new-enviroment
>
>But then I don't see lots of people moving from web based apps to
>usenet.
Hm, I programmed in maybe 10 languages, developed for the web,
maintained networks, and have always use usenet.
Am I alone ?
I mean, is that last statement an opinion or do yo have access to
facts ? (This is a real question, not cheap un-argumented criticism)
Osiris
wrote:
CMS is much less a "way of life" like C, C++, Forth, Linux etc, are.
CMS after all is just a tool for a frontend user to keep the site
rolling.
But on the backend of, say, Joomla, there are developers of the system
itself, an entirely different kind of people.
Commerecial systems have, by nature, a very very small developers
group. But for Joomla, being Open Source, the situation is quite
different.
Compare AIX and Linux...
Osiris
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:52:19 -0500, Dave Sill <d...@big-8.org> wrote:
or might a specific , eg. Joomla, group be the stepping stone for a
generic group like .cms ?
I suppose all of the above mentioned mechanisms will occurr.
Is there a marketing guy/gal around here who can tell ?
Osiris
<mol...@canisius.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:17:23 GMT, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote in
><n3qfh.8563$sf5....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>>>It's CONTENT management, not change management.
>
>>What kind of content does it manage?
>
>Content submitted to web sites by users.
>
In all kinds of forms: appointments in an agenda, text for a page,
answers to polls, news messages, event lists for the sports clubs,
tables of data to be published.
>>Does it belong at the same level
>>as gopher and www?
>
>No. It is an application environment
>that is designed to work under www, not
>as a protocol to replace it.
It works under apache (or IIS, I think) with MySQL support.
Access is always through the web, for a user AND for the admin.
The admin can even edit the index.php and the .css file through
Firefox, upload images to be displayed through the admin page.
Osiris
>
>I won't say "no one has ever heard of" Joomla. But certainly it is not
>as well known as PHP, MySQL, Perl, etc. And yes, there are thousands of
>users registered on their forum. But if there were only one forum on
>the entire internet to discuss PHP, MySQL, Perl or others, how many
>would be registered? I'd suggest the number would be in the millions.
How is the comparison with PHP etc a valid one ?
the fact that there are thousands are registered on a forum must mean
something is going on.
>
>As it is, I think the Joomla forum does a fine job. I don't participate
>there much, but I read a lot. And I really think in this case the users
>would prefer the forums.
Why do you think that ?
How is your opinion "educated" ?
>
>I also highly suspect the closes most of those who use Joomla have ever
>come to Usenet is Google Groups. They wouldn't know the difference
>between Usenet and a forum, and not many would want to switch.
Why do you think that ?
>
>So for different reasons I agree with Jeremy - the group would be nearly
>guaranteed to be DOA.
Those are not reasons, but thoughts, opinions, suspicions and guesses.
Which may be founded by arguments. Which I would very much like to
see.
Osiris
wrote:
>Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>> Osiris wrote:
>>
>>> I think Joomla is important, and use and development should benefit
>>> from the possibilities of Usenet
>>
>> Where are you discussing this now on Usenet?
>
>To put it another way (for Osiris): clearly *you* want to discuss this on
>Usenet, and that's great; I'd like for you to do so. But is there a portion
>of the Joomla community that wants to, also?
Is that not the function of this group ?
Sure, I think it would be a good idea to have a usenet Joomla group.
But I don't wanna be alone there ;-)
This discussion is enlightening.
I hear some arguments for and against.
But also a lot of "I think", "I guess", "I suspect", without
indicating the sources of those feelings.
2Rowdy
by the entity known as Osiris, that requests spam to be sent to
<no...@hotmail.com> and I became inspired,
>> You are trying to create a newsgroup in the Big 8 hierarchy And in
>> the Dutch (nl.*) hierarchy.
>> May I remind you that there is also France (fr.*), Germany (de.*),
>> Italy (it.*), Spain (es.*), etc, etc.
>> So I repeat, how many empty newsgroups do you want?
>
>
> Sorry, true.
> However, the discussion about a general group is conducted here.
> Dutch language specific goroups are discussed, not here, but in the
> nl. group.
> These two discussions are, I think, totally independent.
They are not. Starting a newsgroup requires a lot of attention. It is
a bad idea to divert that attention to two threads.
I advise to stop one thread and continue with the other.
So far you haven't produced a single official RFD.
> Of course there are may people for whom english is only the second
> language and for whom english would be a barrier.
> That's why I thoink, the discussion should be started in nl. too.
The chances of starting a group in Beight are a lot better.
Is there any reason to suggest that Joomla is a Dutch only thing?
> totally consistent with this separation, I did not mention my thread
> in the nl. group here and I said I wanted only one. if that makes
> me a liar, considering the above, ok, have fun with being right.
I would like to be wrong once in a while.
--
d:J0han; Certifiable me
http://www.aacity.net Citroen Newsgroup
By replying to this message you agree to the regulations written
on the back of this posting.
Jonathan Kamens
And that proves Bob's point. You have ALWAYS used Usenet, you're not
someone who is currently using Web forums but would move to Usenet if
a newsgroup in which you were interested were created or brought to
your attention.
Bob's point is (I think), will people who are holding discussions on a
topic in one or more Web forums and who have not used Usenet in the
past see any reason to switch to a Usenet newsgroup for that topic if
one is created?
>I mean, is that last statement an opinion or do yo have access to
>facts ? (This is a real question, not cheap un-argumented criticism)
I don't know if anyone has done a concrete analysis, but the anecdotal
impression of many long-time Usenetters is that Usenet is losing
ground to Web forums in terms of popularity.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
Jonathan Kamens
>Those are not reasons, but thoughts, opinions, suspicions and guesses.
>Which may be founded by arguments. Which I would very much like to
>see.
Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the proponent to show
that the proposed newsgroup would be well-used. As othres have
explained, you are only one person saying you'd like to hold discussion
about Joomla in a newsgroup, and that's not good enough to prove that
there is critical mass to sustain discussion in such a group. You
need to figure out how to prove there's more interest than that, if
you want your proposal to be taken seriously.
The two most common ways of doing that are (a) find other Joomla
people who are interested in a Usenet group and get them to post here
or in news.groups.proposals saying so, or (b) find evidence that there
is existing traffic about Joomla on Usenet which might move to a
Joomla-specific newsgroup is one were created.
Jeremy Nixon
>> To put it another way (for Osiris): clearly *you* want to discuss this
>> on Usenet, and that's great; I'd like for you to do so. But is there a
>> portion of the Joomla community that wants to, also?
>
> Is that not the function of this group ?
The function is to figure out what groups to create (among other things).
> Sure, I think it would be a good idea to have a usenet Joomla group.
> But I don't wanna be alone there ;-)
Well, that's the whole point. What we're asking is whether you *are*
alone there. Have you talked about this idea within the Joomla community?
Because that's really the only thing, at this point -- we can create a
group if people want it, but if they don't, it'll be a dead group, and
we don't want to do that.
I really should get around to making a signature for this group -- I am
a member of the Big-8 Management Board, which votes on the creation of
groups. And as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that is a real
issue here is interest level. If you've got a bunch of Joomla people
looking for a better place to talk about it, and they want to come to
a Usenet group, I think that creating the group for them will be an
easy decision. The matter of where it should appear in the namespace
is minor and will be easily settled.
> This discussion is enlightening.
> I hear some arguments for and against.
> But also a lot of "I think", "I guess", "I suspect", without
> indicating the sources of those feelings.
We're really looking to you for the answers. We knew nothing of your
topic before you came here, so we don't have them. If you've got the
users, that's what's important. You should bring up the topic within
the Joomla community and get a feel for whether people are interested.
If they are, then we get a formal proposal posted and go from there.
I see no source of controversy here.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com (Member of the Big-8 Management Board)
Jeremy Nixon
> On the forums I see posts that scream for Usenet...
Can you post links to such posts? That would be very helpful indeed.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Steve Bonine
> the fact that there are thousands are registered on a forum must mean
> something is going on.
>
>>As it is, I think the Joomla forum does a fine job. I don't participate
>>there much, but I read a lot. And I really think in this case the users
>>would prefer the forums.
>
> Why do you think that ?
> How is your opinion "educated" ?
I think that perhaps the point you're missing is that it is _you_ who
are suggesting that a newsgroup on Joomla is a good idea. It is
therefore your responsibility to demonstrate the validity of your
suggestion. Part of that demonstration is _some_ indication of
potential users for the group.
It has been explained by several individuals in this thread that there
is a reasonable expectation that Joomla users prefer web-based forums.
Several of the people who commented have been around in both Usenet and
the IT world for a number of years.
All I have seen in terms of an attempt to justify the group is
> On the forums I see posts that scream for Usenet...
which is approximately equivalent to "I have lots of support in email."
>>I also highly suspect the closes most of those who use Joomla have ever
>>come to Usenet is Google Groups. They wouldn't know the difference
>>between Usenet and a forum, and not many would want to switch.
>
> Why do you think that ?
>
>>So for different reasons I agree with Jeremy - the group would be nearly
>>guaranteed to be DOA.
>
> Those are not reasons, but thoughts, opinions, suspicions and guesses.
> Which may be founded by arguments. Which I would very much like to
> see.
Then re-read this thread. When someone that I respect states his/her
opinion, I am unlikely to dismiss it as a guess. When several such
people express similar opinions, it's time to pay attention to them.
The fact that there are people subscribed to a web forum is an
indication that there is interest in the product but does not, in
itself, indicate interest in a Usenet group to discuss the product.
The bottom line is that it is your responsibility to refute these
"thoughts, opinions, suspicions, and guesses" with something real.
Until I see other people actually posting in news.groups and saying "I
would use a newsgroup on Joomla", I am not likely to believe that there
is sufficient interest in a Usenet group to justify one.