SMF gets good reviews, but no one mentions it here--why?

Forum Moderators: rogerd

Message Too Old, No Replies

SMF gets good reviews, but no one mentions it here--why?

Is SMF overlooked? Did phpBB get grandfathered into the workflow?

docubio

6:50 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm checking out forum software for my first forays into the world of community building. In terms of free software, phpBB and SMF seem to be the two most logical choices. Elsewhere on the web I find many comparisons of SMF and phpBB. Typically SMF is reviewed favorably and in many cases even preferred head to head. The typical comment is that SMF has tons built in and phpBB involves hack after hack after hack to get it to do what you want. That said, I can't find many mentions at all of SMF at webmasterworld. How can that be?

seunosewa

1:51 am on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I use smf and I think it's really nice. But it's not as free as PHPBB, and it does not have a community as large as that of PHPBB. The license, for example, forbids the alteration of the copyright notice in any way. The copyright notice is generated by an internal function nd not just included in the templates.

[edited by: rogerd at 10:44 am (utc) on Mar. 23, 2005]
[edit reason] No URLs please... [/edit]

docubio

5:30 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Very interesting point about the copyright notice. Outbound links like that are a source of pagerank leakage. Dang.... I'm new, so I don't have a full grasp of how bad or insignificant pagerank leakage like that is, but the perfectionist in me is now saying I should start with phpBB and switch to vBulletin in a few months.

docubio

6:42 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wonder--is there any way to encapsulate the copyright notice in some sort of "nofollow" type thing so that you don't leak pagerank?

encyclo

6:58 pm on Mar 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't worry about the PR, docubio. The difference will be minuscule, and anyway the license forbids you making any changes.

The license for SMF forbids you from doing a lot of things, in fact. SMF looks like a reasonable solution on the surface: it suffers a bit from "featureitis" - there's rather too much going on which can be distracting. However, the license is a killer: you're in much the same situation as those using IPB when it was free, and were left high and dry when the company moved to a paid model. Same goes for the fiasco surrounding Movable Type 3.0 (not forum software, but the same problem). Why develop for SMF when you're virtually giving away your work to the company, and at the same time if the company starts charging, you can't update without either paying the fee or breaking the agreement? What happens if the company goes broke? If there is a security issue and they charge for the patch?

Free software is not just about price, it is about having the confidence that you can build your site on their platform and that you are protected by the license, rather than limited by it.

docubio

3:58 pm on Mar 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Excellent points, encyclo. Thanks.

seunosewa

12:22 am on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

One more thing about SMF: it is really well optimized for a forum with so many features.

You can't:
- Redistribute it without express written consent.
- Alter the copyright notices in any way.

Oh, and by the way, they can change the agreement any time! :P

Most forum owners should be able to live with the terms - if they don't change. Why I'm not using PhpBB? No support for nesting of forums.

[edited by: rogerd at 5:07 am (utc) on Mar. 27, 2005]
[edit reason] No URLs please... [/edit]

Oldiesmann

11:21 pm on Mar 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

encyclo - I don't think SMF suffers from "featureitis" - it's got a lot of great features, but isn't loaded down with tons of useless features. I don't think the license agreement is restrictive at all. And SMF will always be free...

[edited by: rogerd at 5:07 am (utc) on Mar. 27, 2005]
[edit reason] No URLs please... [/edit]

encyclo

2:10 am on Mar 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've not got any serious problems with the product as it is described, and I freely admit that I haven't tested it properly. However, I merely consider, in my opinion, that the license for the product makes it unsuitable for my needs or those of my clients.

[edited by: rogerd at 5:09 am (utc) on Mar. 27, 2005]
[edit reason] No URLs please... [/edit]

Oldiesmann

2:10 am on Mar 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

In what way(s)? What exactly is in the license that causes problems for you? The developers will gladly answer any questions you might have about the license - just ask. SMF will indeed always be free. In fact, one lead developer says he would "rue the day when SMF was not free" (search Google for that phrase, since we can't post URLs here).