Slashdot Mirror
Mambo CMS Dev Team Splits
cozimek writes "The popular Mambo CMS developer team has severed its ties with Miro Corporation, the copyright owner on the GPL'd Mambo CMS. You can read more about the renegade dev team."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
mambo is dead- let lambada live! or was it tchachaha? or are any developers now not only living under a line but also dancing below one (aka Limbo)
Conclusion: we may expect inspired names for the forks that propably descend of this
---
there's only one thing worse than biting yourself in your arse. get bitten.
What are the legal ramifications of this? I sure hope they don't set a precedent of involving Free/Open Source Software in questionable legal dealings...
not like SCO didn't start that already.
its not a problem the development team will be continuing to develop.
they just wont do so under the dictatorship of miro
You can read about what is Mambo CMS here.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
No wonder the business is hesitant to embrace the concept.
So if business did embrace the concept, would that be SPOONING?
A simple Troll, born of Rock and Fire, leaving in the basement of my parents volcano and typing on an asbestos keyboard.
Just what I need.
I just started migrating my own site, and setting up seveal client sites using Mambo. It seemed the flexible/functional OSS CMS out there for my needs.
Now I have to deal with a fork and worrying about patches to 2 different lines (not to mention all the plugins).
This is not going to be fun.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
They left the company because it would not care about the need of users. The same devs will continue to develop Mambo. Everything is fine.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
someone gives somthing toyou for free (as in speech) and it isnt good enough for you so you trash 'em? as much as i like mambo, thats messed up
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I looked up mamboportal.com, and saw the following:
...During the last month more and more users registered at our website. Since today we had more than 100,000 registered users.
... ... I gues you can imagine how long it takes to load a page with a 100,000 entrys drop down menu.
...
Why? Mambo's user management is very simple and has not changed much since the early days. For example Mambo uses a drop down menu in the content items to select the creator of an article.
However as I want to move forward with Mamboportal.com and the new team I decided to clear the whole userdatabase today. Every of the 100,000 registered users will be informed about that via Email the next days.
I guess open source really does matter in this respect : if it doesn't work, change it yourself. Opensource will really help to mature this product even further.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Shouldn't worry about that.
The code is gpl, the name is trademarked. The developers went their own way.
There are still going to be new releases only the name will change.
And yes, I'm sure you can easely upgrade from mambo to $newname. From my point of view, the new mambo is going to be even more free than it was before. This actually isn't a 'open source' problem since closed source licences (and prices) can change in new versions of the product your using.
With open source you have at least the freedom to 'take the code and run' when the maintainers of that code do something you're not happy with.
--> Insert Funny Sig Here
No wonder the business is hesitant to embrace the concept.
Depends on your definition of "embracing". If by embracing you understand "seizing and taking control of an open source project", yes, the Mambo Foundation really embraced it!
Well I say screw them. We can use OpenMambo (suggested name) anytime we want. Sooner or later the original will become obsolete.
should have been OT, not troll. This is either brilliant or stolen, but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Q1. But forking is bad!
A. No, not unless it splits the team, and even then competition is as good a driver as collaboration. Many of the most successful products come from forked versions that eventually out-evolved their ancestors. Homo Sapiens is a good example.
Q2. Is it legal to start a new fork like this?
A. The GPL guarantees this possibility. It's one of the better reasons for choosing GPL'd software - you are assured that if the product is good but the management is bad, the developers are free to continue their work.
Q3. What about the copyrights?
A. The copyright allows the owner to (a) define the license terms, (b) change these over time, e.g. from GPL to APL, etc., and (c) sell alternative licenses, e.g. commercial opt-out licenses for a GPL'd product.
Q4. So the copyright owner could sell opt-out licenses for a fork?
A. No! The forked code will now have multiple copyright owners - the new and the old code. The copyright owner can only license their own code.
Q5. What would have happened if Mambo was licensed under a BSD-style license originally?
A. Probably exactly the same, except that it would have forked earlier. The GPL discourages forking because it gives the copyright owners more incentive to "hold the work together" at some level.
Q6. Is this bad for Mambo?
A. Certainly not. It's good publicity, and a little fighting always strengthens team spirit, so long as the enemy is clear. Let's all kick the corporations!!!
Q7. How do you know all this stuff?
A. I don't, I'm just making it up as I go along.
Q8. You're kidding?
A. Yes. Gotcha!
Q9. Is that all?
A. Yes, I'm just trying to get to 10 questions. Maybe that was a bit ambitious. Should I go and change it to "7 easy questions"?
Q. No, ten is a nice number.
A. Exactly.
My blog
I almost clicked it... whew.
Just ask the XFree86 folks. 8-)
Couldn't you have found a Mambo logo, or maybe a generic open source logo or something for this one? It has nothing to do with PHP.
The very definition of open source software is that anyone is allowed to modify and distribute it. The GPL was created for the entire purpose of allowing this, so why would doing so be concidered "questionable legal dealings"? There are no legal ramifications whatsoever, except the possibility that they may have to change the name / logo of the project if Miro has trademarked it.
Those aren't forks, they're different versions of Windows. At best you could say Windows95/98/ME is one development base and NT/2k/2k3/XP/Vista, etc. is another, but they are all still developed by the same company.
There goes the Mambohood.
Hopefully they can resolve this amicabally before we get forked up.
This seems to me like the result of the current Open Source Hype in the investment community. Some entrepreneural types think that if they just go ahead and pay a lawyer to file the paperwork for a foundation, they instantly become like Apache and Firefox in the eyes of the VC's, and this is a clear example that it couldn't be further from the truth and that forming and maintaining a foundation for "bragging rights" ("we have formed a foundation - who-hoo!") bytes back big time.
It'd be interesting to see what happens next - I think this foundation would have to be dissolved and will probably lose its tax-exempt status?
Though this situation will undoubtedly be used by certain pundits and businesses as cannon fodder against OSS, I think it only goes to show how the GPL empowers those who do the work. If the entire team (i.e. "the workers") get up, say "thank you" and fork the code, things like brand name, copyright and such suddenly become completely useless.
It's knowledgeable people that are the only true resource in the case - let's see Miro just replace all of them overnight and beat the forked version this team will be working on.
How the hell is this flamebait? There are many reasons why our company is apprehensive about moving to an open source architecture and this is one of them.
alias dir='rm -rf
It does show it's strength by forking. Miro was essentially having a coup for control over the Mambo source code with it's "Mambo Foundation" The developers had no say in any of this. The community has seen it has no control over what happens to "Mambo" so they left. www.opensourcematters.org
Let me put on the hat of a CIO or small business owner who has some infrastructure built around Mambo (which BTW is along with e107, XOOPS and Plone one of the absolute best FLOSS CMS packages) - I've heard that "free software" is not the same as "open source", along with RMS taking potshots at ESR and viceversa, with Bruce Perens standing in the middle yelling "it's all OK folks, don't panic!" and here I have the "core developers" of this otherwise excellent CMS apparently can't tell their two philosophies apart, but they've forked the project nonetheless. The next time I need to upgrade or patch things should be fun.
Pity. Plone and a host of other projects have successfully transitioned from hobby operations to foundations, but apparently this time something went wrong. Perhaps Miro got too greedy for their own good.
Well, at least they have the option of forking.
So some other program now exists that's based on the same code. How does this affect you? It's some other program! It may offer you some nice options, i.e. you may be able to switch over to the new system, but otherwise, you're unaffected!
You might just as justifiably claim that Linux/PPC is a "problem" for OS/X users. It's not a problem, it's an alternative! And one you're welcome to ignore if you so choose!
Sheesh!
Q3. What about the copyrights?
A. The copyright allows the owner to (a) define the license terms, (b) change these over time, e.g. from GPL to APL, etc., and (c) sell alternative licenses, e.g. commercial opt-out licenses for a GPL'd product.
So a forked right version quite obviously would have multiple copyright holders, for the new and old code. Right? Right. What happens to the forked version if and when the copyright holder decides to re-license their code under a more stringent license? Are they now forced to either license the code or drop the product? What happens if they re-license to a non-derivative license? Is the forked version permanently grandfathered in, so that they can continue to modify the code? I'm not really sure at all how this works.
--- What
your coworkers prefer $newName or $NewName which are both easier to read. please don't submit anymore code as $new_name, $new_Name, or $New_Name either. the underscores are a pain in the butt to reach.
Signed,
Your Boss
Why? Pick a fork and stay with it.
You have more problems with a closed source company end of lifing what you're using.
It's probably flamebait because it doesn't reek of Koolaid.
Ah, yes. Open source shows its strength again... BY FORKING.
So what's wrong with that? None of us would be here today if not for the cardinal pleasures of fu- Oh... You said "Forking".
Never mind...
So it looks like nothing much will change for people who use the software. If anything, this incident is an example of why you want your business-critical software to be open source. You're not necessarily screwed when somethign like this happens.
As a counter example: as the tech market was fixing to implode, the VC funding one of our vendors decided that the company would be mroe likely to sell if they used an ASP service model instead of selling software. So they stopped selling their software. There would be no more upgrades and no more licenses; the only option offered to us was to move to their hosted solution. Basically we were screwed. If the software were GPL, we wouldn't have been.
This split allows the developers to get out from under the Miro cloud. It won't be long before users of Mambo have to start paying big bucks for upgrades, components, etc. because of the terms of the Mambo Foundation.
Since all the core development team left together, Miro will eventually be out of the picture, and the open source cms formerly know as mambo will flourish.
opensourcematters
http//www.opensourcmatters.org
If Mambo had been a closed source product, and the company that developed it started misbehaving (raising prices, making changes that ruin it, etc.), then the users of Mambo would be _screwed_.
With closed source, the only choices for Mambo users would be to accept the bad changes (higher prices, etc.), or give up using Mambo.
But, since Mambo is Open Source, Mambo users are _protected_.
With Open Source, when a developer starts misbehaving, anyone else has the option of forking the code, in order to ensure that the preferred direction is maintained.
So everyone should ignore the trolls and astroturfers who are calling this a weakness of Open Source. On the contrary, it is a strength. It protects users from having to suffer at the hands of a disreputable company, as, for example, Microsoft's customers have suffered.
Hmmm, that sound a lot like what your where trying to do to Mambo some time ago...
Offtopic somewhat but what naming convention do most hardened PHP developers prefer?
The only resistance to open source comes from bad managers. Open source is a motivator to manage a project well and treat your people fairly, or risk losing them.
gimme an A...
what's that spell...???
D R A M A !!!!
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
I RTA,
seems to me like Miro paid developers to write software.
Opened a foundation (what are the ramifications of such a foundation?) without speaking to the developers.
Devs got mad and left?
I also went to the Miro website and it said that Mambo is an OSS project.
so whats happening? I'm confused..
So you can't expect them to Mambo with only 1.
I like having choices, but sometimes it is tough making the choice.
A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
Dammit and I just started sniffing glue. The faeces has hit the fan. I've seen colours I've never seen before and I've started spelling some of my words in British. I'll probably be running my site on Maembo soon.
How'd that Commodore 5 1/4" floppy disk drive get in there? I guess anything can happen after two eight balls.
"You have more problems with a closed source company end of lifing what you're using."
Of course because we all know all things digital go bad, and need to be thrown out, and replaced with the latest Blu/HD...fork of the week whatever.
--
Todays word is breakage.
Disclaimer: I'm not involved with Mambo in any way, but I have dealt with similar issues before.
Indeed. The problem here is that Mambo was a very mature community, and large communities eventually start having problems that involve legal and other matters. You need a foundation to handle such things. All the people complaining that things should have just stayed the same simply do not understand the issues beyond their own nose.
Lots of people are angry that they were't "consulted" or that the community didn't "vote". This ignores the fact that there is no legal way to take a vote from the community (that's one of the problems a foundation solves). They are also complaining that Miro picked the board, rather than having the community "vote" on it (see previous point).
The problem is that when you form a foundation, you need to appoint a board to oversee the intial creation and running of the foundation. Since there are no members to legally vote on the board before the foundation exists, they MUST be appointed. After they are appointed, and you have a means to join the foundation and be a member, you can hold a new election to put people in that the community HAS voted on. This also seems to have been lost on the majority of "knee jerk" responses.
All in all, this very reaction illustrates the very NEED for a legal governing body over the project, yet the core devs want to go off and create yet another lawless community that will (mark my words) eventually have this EXACT SAME PROBLEM once again down the line.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I wonder if the managment team was given an ultimatum by the devteam before they walked...
If there was one given, i can't blame the team really. If things aren't being handled as they should have been and the management had a chance to fix it and refused to do so, then the devteam deserves the chance to develop the product in the way that seems more appropriate using the ideas of OSS/GPL "rules" as a reference (which includes leaving the organization and starting a new "fork" if need be).
I do however think that a fork is ALWAYS bad for business at least for a good while. It's going to take the dev team a while to get organized with a newly engineered focus, meanwhile the old "team" flounders... In this case theres not even really a dev team left to flounder. Sadly this looks like a lose/lose for a while. As always "we'll see what happens."
And I don't mean the Developers , it's other dude's who're out to proprietize a wild beast. Don't I told you, but they never listen! BTW My site to runs on Mambo, not that I'm making millions out of it(smirk).
Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
Actually the copyright holder can withdraw a GPL-ed work's license.
The catch/save/whatever you want to call it is that the GPL was what gave other people the right to copy that work and redistribute to their heart's content. The other people are however restricted to the conditions of the GPL for redistributing the work and any further changes to it. They do, however, hold copyright to the new work added in.
This is also how a copyright holder can take a GPL'd work private with new modifications. The new stuff isn't licensed and they have the right to use the old stuff as the copyright holder and aren't thus bound to the GPL conditions for using the old stuff.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
In other words. Geeks are human too, and no license is going to change that.
http://mambo-foundation.org/content/view/4/45/
So with regard to Mambo, the GPL and copyright:
You MAY distribute it and charge for that service. You MAY change it, add design and content to it and you MAY charge for that. You may NOT alter the license and you must NOT alter the copyright. You do NOT have to show a 'Powered by Mambo' graphic, as it not a copyright notice.
In other words, you must NOT pretend that Mambo is yours, and you must NOT charge people for Mambo iteself.
I thought that GPL software could be sold as long as the source was attached.
Please work for closed source vendors, create great software and don't have anything to take you when you get fired.
Since there are no members to legally vote on the board before the foundation exists, they MUST be appointed. After they are appointed, and you have a means to join the foundation and be a member, you can hold a new election to put people in that the community HAS voted on.
In this particular case I think part of the problem is that the appointed members were all from Miro and none from the community and none of the developers (you know the people that matter to users) were given any say in choosing the board. Thus from a users point of view or a developers point of view this is the corporate guy who trademarked the name has decided to create a foundation that will manage the developers. He appointed a bunch of people from his company, but no developers or users outside his company. He did not consult anyone about this.
the core devs want to go off and create yet another lawless community
Sorry but the core devs and the code they create are the project. They do the work, it's all their baby. Going into this project that was the understanding which is why it is GPL. If they want to create a foundation with the help of a corporation or some lawyer friends, well great. If they don't, well it's their ball game. Maybe they do need a governing body, but if so it should be one they design and want, not one imposed by others.
Exactly! If you *don't* want your dev team to walk out on you and start a fork, you have 2 options:
1) listen to their input, treat them like part of the foundation instead of just codemonkeys.
2) don't GPL your source code.
If you don't understand the consequences of GPLing something, then don't GPL it. The same goes for any other business decision you could possibly make.
From what I have read, this is not true. Apparently the developers that were members of the Mambo Steering Comittee voted in favor of the creation of the foundation. They just didn't like the way it was set up.
The community is the one that actually ASKED miro to create the foundation. So claiming there was no input is doesn't seem to be accurate.
Further, from what I have read, not all members of the board were Miro employees. Only a few of them were. There were people from the community who were not developers, as well as several developers who claimed they weren't even asked (though it wouldn't surprise me if they simply changed their minds after the brouhaha started and didn't want to be villified, but in any case they WERE appointed).
Sorry but the core devs and the code they create are the project.
You're right. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with a community that has no legal protection or has any legal status at all.
And, as you point out, it *IS* GPL'd. If *I* want to create a foundation for Mambo, even though I'm not involved in any way, I can. I can take the code and create my own project. The devs are not the sole owners of it, everyone is.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
and not one standard Slashdot grammar tirade...even though it's warranted?
The popular Mambo CMS developer team has severed its ties with Miro Corporation
Really? Would it have been so difficult to write "The developer team behind the popular Mambo CMS has severed ties with Miro Corporation" ? The way it's worded now, it sounds like it's the team that's popular.
Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe the Mambo developers sport slick haircuts, get good grades, drive sweet cars, hang out with the jocks but still keep it real by getting baked occasionally.
Damn. Now I want someone to post those pictures of hipsters that get posted in every thread about Mac users.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
"Those aren't forks, they're different versions of Windows."
Some of them actually are forks. 9x/NT are actually two separate forks. The fact that it is developed by the same company doesn't make it any less of a fork.
Finally, in XP, the fork overtook the original.
Engineering and the Ultimate
For some reason I was having a brain fart and I thought that the story was about the Mono project for some reason, lol!
Then I read the Wikipedia article and I go, oh ya CMS I remember what Mambo is now.
Don't mind me, I am just slightly retarded today thus I am posting under anonymous coward.
When I heard about this Mambo foundation thing I thought "Oh, so your ripping of the crappy part of the Typo3 development hype here in germany". Just months after this strange T3 Foundation popped up.
Mambo is the best looking OSS CMS but it has it's lasting issues with usability. Building a Foundation won't change that, have people ignore it and pump up the turnover with Miro services.
Time and time again I've considered getting down with Mambo improvement but I was hesitant that Mambo quirks persisted so long for a reason and that deving would've meant forking Mambo right from the get-go.
Bingo.
I'm glad that is settled now.
Now if the Typo3 folks calm down again and see to it going PHP 5 and OOP without wasting too much time with a 'foundation' and its various costly 'membership options', we can get back to work and have two PHP CMSes to rule them all.
Time to join the [fill in Mambos new name here] Team.
BTW, there are OSS projects that actually benefit from a foundation. One's the former commercial 3D Package Blender. Ton Roosendahl uses the Blender Stichting as a versatile tool to pull larger Blender development and project stunts. It's tied to a tight knitt team of all-time participants and lacks a pesky babble and paper-releasing faction. A very good example for an OSS foundation that works.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"The devs are not the sole owners of it, everyone is."
That's right, and lets see the numb nuts president do the coding along with his apointees now that the developers have left.
I doubt this came out of the blue also since when you are dealing with that many developers, 20 on the list from what I count, things are slow to organize and reach a consensus. I am sure there were ample opportunities for the president to recognize that there was not enough input, to realize the developers were displeased, and rechoose a board that was more reflective of the wishes of the developers.
Good luck to the new Mambo CMS team.
Miro Corporation wanted to play games and fuck the development team so the development team took their dick away. Now the development team will do all of the fucking!
Get your Unix fortune now!
(Score:-1, Flamebait)
Rad
That this is the final nail in the coffin of Mambo, I hate that damn CMS.
OMG SOEMOEN SI H4X0RING MAI B0X3N!1!
... this doesn't bother me one bit. While this is an opportunity for the Mambo developers to get their act together and formalize the development process in an effort to bring some much needed stability to the platform definition, personally it doesn't make a spit of difference to me because I gave up on using it for anything more than a session management and user registration framework - everything else is custom code, so it doesn't matter how many additional patches, plugins and whatever else they come up with for a new branch because I won't use any of it. Mambo was exciting to me at first because of all the plugins and thrid party support for the platform, but...
I since discovered that the lack of a clearly defined specification for the platform has done away with the concept of backward compatability which depracates and/or orphans modules, plugins and "API" coding conventions for module developers nearly every other release. This process has resulted in a complete failure to amass wide-spread availability of compatible module/component/plugin support. After spending a couple weeks fine tuning my first Mambo installation only so see a new release with a CRITICAL security patch which was no longer compatible with any of the components/modules I was using, I gave up trying to keep up.
So all legalities aside, this is an opportunity for the new and improved Mambo team to put together a new and improved product that is worthy of third party developers' time.
... and if the Mob embraced the concept, would that be KNIFING?
The carnal pleasures are not limited to cardinals. In fact, all birds - nay all animals enjoy the carnal pleasures we know as sexual reproduction.
Cardinals are a particular dirty birdy though, I'll grant you that.
... So I guess this shows it doesn't necessarily take two to Tango...
CT http://www.populationstatistic.com/
Yeah, it would be so much better if we were stuck with sodipodi instead of inkscape.
I use a commercial 3D modeling program called Poser. When version 5 came out, the company released a notoriously buggy piece of crap which came with draconian EULA and copy protection that guaranteed you couldn't reinstall it on a crashed/recovered HD without contacting the company. Speculation was wild that if the company went under (which it was dangerously close to doing) users would be screwed if a generic unlock code wasn't released to the public. Word of mouth sunk sales and upgrades.
What happened? Two things. Their chief commercial content vendor created a free (albeit crude) clone of Poser (to protect their own business). The parent company of Poser's owners fired the CEO, and ordered the offending EULA clauses and the copy protection removed.
We dodged a bullet. Narrowly. The parent company soon went bankrupt, but luckily found a prosperous Japanese 3D software house to sell Poser to. Poser 6 is a more stable product, now featuring subsurface scattering, radiosity, more sophisticated distance blur...
Had there been no competition, Poser might have died with 5.0. And it contains at least two externally licensed modeling technologies which would not have been trivial to blackbox (technically or legally). No one developer at Curious Labs had total claim of the codebase AFAIK, so they couldn't take their football like the Mambo team did. (FYI the clone, DAZ|Studio, doesn't support those features to this day)
Would the upcoming MS Office support XML of any kind if OpenOffice hadn't gained the mindshare it has?
Forking = competition = survival of the fittest. It's the most "free market" capitalistic philosophical aspect of FOSS.
IMHO the new CMS will in all likelihood be backwards compatible to all current instances of Mambo. Folks like you have a simple decision: go with the brand name and none of the core Mambo development team, or the as-yet-unnamed successor with the same exact features, same price tag, and the core development braintrust.
There will always be the risk of forking. OO.o users are up in arms about OO.o 2.0's dependence on Java, which poses a problem for unsupported platforms.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
At the end of the day what does it matter?
The current release does all my clients need or will ever need for a run of the mill site. I make my living using mambo, oscommerce and zencart and customising to the need of my clients.
The codebase has it's problems but for "free" is more than I could have accomplished in years.
My clients will still be happy when I say "Yes I can do that" to a complicated brief and have a fully working CMS skinned within a week with more "features" than they could possibly use. For what would have cost $10,000, and taken 9 months back in 2000.
For a one man band like me mambo has been a great tool. And whatever happens next the code as it stands now is more than enough for me to use for the next few years.
AM
Howdy, Well, it's quite rightly good to see that ya'll are takin' an interest in our humble community, and the mutiny that lily livered Peter Lamont has sprung on us...
I've been doin' my bit to provide coverage of this debacle since the shi... sugar hit the fan on my blog site - Mambo Foundation discussion with the Lone Mamber. http://lonemamber.blogspot.com/
If you're after a lowdown on what's happened so far, pop on over 'cos I've been coverin' this thang as it happens.
Thankye kindly for your support of the Mambo core dev team and the community,
The Lone Mamber
No. It is what Mambo/Miro tried to do to Furthermore.
Kind regards,
Brian Connolly
President
Furthermore, Inc.
bconnolly @ furthermore DOT com
Haha nice try, troll.
"Since the GPL permits redistribution, the owner of the code can't do anything."
You forgot to go, neener, neener.
We tried to slip that one by you, but obviously you're too good for that! You are Uber Powerful Man! You are immune to the dark power of sarcasm, wit, and humor!
and if the development team wanted to enjoy a refreshing salad, would they do so by SALAD FORKING?
=\
"Disclaimer: I'm not involved with Mambo in any way, but I have dealt with similar issues before."
Being that you are posting in the forums with an IP address from one of the Mambo Foundation Board Members' clients, I'm forced to say you are intentionally deceiving us.
There are more details at Ars Technica, providing a little more background to the events leading up to present.
Disclaimer: I am one of the developers involved, and will openly admit it. Sure wished everyone else could be as honest, and cannot wait to get things done proper.
Mitch Pirtle (spacemonkey)
OpenSourceMatters.org
"The mind is a terrible thing to, um, uh, oh bollocks." -- Me
I am not part of your comunity but from what I have read about the history of Miro/Mambo without Lamont you guys would have been just another bunch of hobby hackers in the "-5, Thinking About It" SourceForge stage.
Why am I not surprised.
Seems that greed has gotten the best of a good thing. But in this new age of open source it is even more difficult to kill momentum that has developed with the mambo dev team. I have constructed a mambo development team of my own and have been building extremely functional magazine websites. I honestly won't even recommend building a website with any other CMS. If anybody is interested in working with my open source team let me know!!!
It's not good to see people pondering whether they should use Mambo or not. Its a pretty neat CMS, and works quite well. As for forking, there are already things like "Limbo" and others that have already forked off. People are always fearful of change and I think there are some quite common misconceptions about the current dev team's involvement in Mambo's development.
What really amazes me is that there seems to be this fear of brain drain from the main dev team. Why they've only made bug fixes and little patches, nothing big has truly been done for more than a year now and all the significant changes to 4.5.1 were made by one person.
So all you mad keen PHP developers out there should join in on the development of this app and really get it moving forward.
And if the development team had women would it be called... er... nah, they wouldn't have women...
What dictatorship? What do you claim to know about this?
Fogcreek citydesk???
It seems so easy to use to me that I recomend it over almost anything.
However you need windows to use it
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
What a fat load of balone. The whole point of setting up the foundation was to try and get a focus and head Mambo down a path rather than floundering and adding stupid modules and components that only geek developers will use. This is all so mis-informed and flame driven. Get your facts straight first.
I see you've played knifey spooney before...
Great.
In my mind's eye, I see a couple spooning on a park bench in front of an Italian restaurant, with members of the Family coming and going, carrying the tools of their trade, and out come two chefs with forks full of spaghetti arguing about the recipe.
And the couple on the park bench are oblivious.
Bullshit.
Whenever someone doubts you, you go on the conspiracy theory front line. You owe me a serious appology on this, and you need to take a chill pill and stop accusing everyone around you of trying to deceive you.
While my slashdot ID is not as old as yours, it's certainly not new. I've been posting here for a good 5 or 6 years, and my posting history has never had ANYTHING to do with Mambo. In fact, this is the first i've even mentioned it.
The address I posted to the Opensourcematters board from is in a netblock that has nothing to do with the Mambo Foundation, and I would be highly surprised if anyone from the Mambo Foundation were even in the same state as me, much less using the same IP address (which is NAT'd by the way).
You're welcome to post the logs of both my ip address, and the IP address of whomever you think I am to prove your argument, otherwise give me an appology. You're full of shit.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
"Would the upcoming MS Office support XML of any kind if OpenOffice hadn't gained the mindshare it has?"
Given that Word 2003 supports XML (albiet not in quite the same way) then the answer is a complete and resounding yes.
(You can save a Word 2003 file as XML. You can import XML files as data into a document. You can edit XML files. With Schema verification.)
And, even without that, you'd have to know nothing about MS to know they've been pushing XML for a while now.
you have 3 options
1.) Stick with Mambo or whatever they decide to call it. Even if the code "forks" as long as you go with the fork you'll be fine. They're a competent lot and aren't going to leave their customers in the lurch.
2.) Stick with Miro. Whatever they do will at least be supported by a commercial organisation but that will mean not as many developers on the project and paid support which might not live up to your expectations.
3.) Change to a different CMS. As well as Mambo I use CMSMadeSimple. I prefer it as it uses Smarty and is really, really simple to use and template. Doesn't have e-commerce yet though and is still in "beta" though very stable and well written. (Look I'm a fan, OK?)
mmmm.....zombo.....
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
IPF is not open source. You see, I have decided that the definition of open source is now "software which displays pornography". IPF clearly does not qualify. IE is now open source though.
What, I am not allowed to make up a random and arbitrary definition for established english words? So why do you think some random joe who registered opensource.org can?
open-source adj.
Of or relating to source code that is available to the public: an open-source operating system.
Oops, it looks like IPF qualifies based on the english definition doesn't it? Quit being such a tool and sucking the cocks of random idiots who claim to have invented something that had already existed while they were in diapers. Bruce Perens has nothing to do with open source software, and has no right or authority to change the english language to suit his agenda.
Cardinals do a particular dirty preachy act though, I'll grant you that.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
The word free has two meanings, and RMS has at least made some free (as in cost) software. So you could make the case that he does in fact have "something" to do with free software. He certainly does not have any authority to try to redefine the word free to suit his agenda though.
Dancer: "You are now with child."
Marge: "How did that happen?"
Dancer: "It is the mystery of the dance."
(apologies for any mistakes, I'm quoting from memory)
OLPC Australia