Hi,
I think having the wiki as default page for the project makes a lot of
sense, there is way more information on the Wiki at this point, and it's
pretty well organized.
Of course, a few key pages would need to be locked-down (or maybe not, I'm
an optimist !!). And dynamic pages like the
Hi Curt,
Curtis Olson wrote:
2. I've played a bit with drupal, and in comparison to wordpress, it feels
much more adhoc and clunky, much less thought out, much more disorganized,
much less intuitive, much harder to admin, and much harder to make it do
what I want to do.
Well, Drupal is
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Martin Spott wrote:
Well, Drupal is primarily a website CMS whereas WordPress, to my
understanding, is prominently meant to serve for blogs.
This is all true, but wordpress does have some capabilities in the CMS arena
too.
Therefore it
doesn't come by
I knocked up this site with a templating engine, powered by NOREL on GAE,
http://fg-www.appspot.com/
I also ported it to php5 to make everyone GPL happy ie not google, m$,
oracle etc..
http://github.com/ac001/flightgear-php not online but same site powered
by php5
http://fg-www.appspot.com/I
Martin Spott wrote:
It's a little bit like buying a house when you're thinking about having four
kids.
even though we bought a nice house last autumn which might be suited
to accommodate four children, the above sentence wasn't meant to be
understood as a self-portrait ;-)
Gijs,
This sounds like a worthwhile proposal. Why not set up the wiki page etc. so
that we can compare and come up with an informed decision, rather than some
pre-formed opinions. (4 FG Developers - 5 opinions. One will change their
mind :-))
Vivian
-Original Message-
From:
Hi,
I like this idea as well!
A good and fantastic simulation project as FlightGear needs a better
represantion on the web if we want to be as successfull as we are now.
The only thing I fear is: that it will be another useless discussion, without
any resultat
CheersHeiko
still in work:
Gijs de Rooy wrote:
- Less open system: for example, it will be harder to implement
additional features (gallery's, search engines) etc. However, the
alternative is a CMS system, which isn't much opener...
I'm uncertain about how to read this final conclusion.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Hey!
Torsten wrote:
From time to time, I notices some abuse by inserted spam into our wiki pages.
Great care must be taken, our
home page is locked for the everybody group.
Of course. Additionally I will look for some more anti-spam measures that we
could install at the wiki.
The
Hi Gijs,
Gijs de Rooy wrote:
Question is: are there really (that many) features that we cannot
install easily on a wiki/CMS?
The most prominent item that comes into my mind is what is probably
well-decribed as dynamic content (choose a better term, if you like).
Being the technical maintainer
On Sun, 10 Oct 2010, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
From time to time, I notices some abuse by inserted spam into our wiki pages.
Great care must be taken, our home page is locked for the everybody group.
If you're using the Wikimedia engine, you can install a plug-in that will
require accounts to
11 matches
Mail list logo
