Open Source or Commercial WWWBoard Software? 42
"Aside from the security concerns of the script, we are having problems with the script supporting that many users (up to 30 to 50 concurent, during peak times). During peak times, we can get 3 to 6 requests a second, which is fine for veiwing static pages with our configuration, but when multiple people try to post, the script can't support it. It sits on a T-1 all by itself on a Cobalt RAQ2, with 256 MB RAM. I like the "slash" package, but I've not been able to make it run on the RAQ2 just yet.
I'd like to "Ask Slashdot", what software/ hardware combination would you recommend? Is there a way to modify Slash so that the main articles are generated by the users, instead of submitted by the moderators? And lastly, has anyone been able to get Slash to run on a Cobalt box."
Anyone have other alternatives for WWWBoard software? I'm sure there are plenty out there, but how well do these packages work (especially under heavy loads)?
wwwthreads (Score:1)
A set of Perl scripts, formerly GPL (3.5.1 was the last GPL version AFAIK) but now commercial. You can find the GPL version out and about. For your traffic, you might want to pay and get some support though. Either way, it's pretty slick.
www.wwwthreads.org [wwwthreads.org]
Reply from one of the team (Score:2)
However there are a couple of things to consider:
1. The web interface is single threaded. This hasn't affected the performance for most people, but it is an issue (one that is being thought about for the next release).
2. It uses 3 horrible components (not my choice): VB for WebBoard web interface, MS SQL server (5 user edition) - bad because it means I can't properly cache statements and do some nice things I'd like to, and finally - NT. However I developed the NNTP component on Linux so there's no reason you can't run that separately on a Linux box.
However I would very much like to hear back from anyone using WebBoard (as would the rest of the team - we're a very small group), especially feedback on the NNTP component.
Matt.
Because it works (Score:2)
It's the same reason some people still pay for O'Reilly's WebSite Pro - unlike IIS (and other free NT web servers) it just plain works.
Re:web board failed our test....... (Score:2)
OK. I don't know if that was Web Board 3, but it probably was since 4 is very recent. One of the major reasons for WB4 was performance improvement and ability to do load distribution across multiple servers. However it's sadly still NT and still VB and still single threaded - I don't have a control over those issues.
Support at the ORA site was anything but but helpful, denying any problems, until some other posts meticulously detailed the issue. Then there was no comment. It's a classic case for Open Source, as there were several on the forum with the chops to take a look and fix what was wrong, but the nature of closed software prohibited such.
I can't argue with this. It is unfortunately the nature of closed s/w. I wish I were in a position to change it. However I'd still like to be paid for the work
I'm probably not the only one with whom the irony is not lost on the fact the Tim O'Reilly, while lately pushing OSS models, still has Web
Board under an commercial license, for a single platform.
I see the irony there too. It's not just WB either - ORA have WebSite Pro too. One of the key things I had to keep fighting was support for the NNTP server on "alternative" platforms too - it's developed on Linux - I don't have a single NT box. It's also developed on a Sybase backend rather than the stinky MSDE they deliver on. But hey - maybe they'll see the error of their ways soon enough
The real problem now, is how to deal with the nearly 30,000 messages in the archive since January.
If you decide to try out the latest WB, contact me directly (matt @ sergeant.org - minus the spaces) 'cos we're working on a WWWBoard->WebBoard conversion script (there are a number of people in your shoes).
Good Luck with your search.
Thoughts (Score:2)
Secondly, Slash should serve well as a BBS program. Actually, why would you want the main topics to be entered by the user? If you treat each "topic" as being a section on the board, and the "comments" area as the actual BBS itself, it is much more natural, the way it is.
Thirdly, Squishdot is starting to shape up nicely. That might be worth a squint.
Lastly, optimise EVERYTHING as best you can. There is no point in upgrading the software and/or hardware, if you end up running only just about as well as you did to start with. Free up as much RAM as you physically can, and squash any compiled code into as small a space as you can, whilst keeping the speed optimisation as high as possible.
Re:Thoughts (Score:1)
Slash (Score:1)
Oh, and you might have better work with Slash 0.3-3.7 [zevils.com] than the stock versions that Rob puts out. Those versions are quite buggy. Oh, btw, there's also NNTP support [zevils.com] for Slash.
I'm the one who put out newsd and the 0.3-3.7 tarball. I also seem to be making the most noise about adding functionality to Slash on slash-help. In fact, someone just offered to host a Slash CVS repository for me and I'm forking the code (see slash-help - especially the recent YA0.4W thread - for the gory details of why.)
(I've sent a copy of this reply to the original poster via email since I don't know if he's still reading this story or not.)
Re:Squishdot is a Zope 'Product' (Score:1)
Squishdot [zope.org] as a module. Works grand and straight out of the box but you need to decide you need Zope first as this is a strategy level thing really.
Re:Phorum and W-agora (Score:1)
--
Notepad specialist & FAT administrator, group training available Fabian Rodriguez
Re:Where to get message board software (Score:1)
Threaded systems -- and Slashdot is one -- are good for post-and-response environments. You can see how that shapes the conversation here. It's great for Q&A, far superior to linear or room-based conversations, but interactions tend to burn out fairly quickly.
So I think a decision on Web-based conferencing software turns on your goals. If you're trying to build a very tight community where the users really get to know one another, the linear model is superior. If you're putting the Pet Vet online for questions and answers, a threaded model works better.
The best compromise I've seen was the proprietary Interchange system, developed by Ziff-Davis in 1993-1995. Its discussion model was fundamentally linear but allowed for easy branching, either at the decision of a participant or through action by a sysop. That helped to sustain a focused conversation while accommodating the reality of topic drift and tangental responses.
Whatever you do, demand that your software keep track of what the user has already seen. It's sad that so many "commercial" packages these days can't match the basic functionality that Fido bulletin boards provided back in the dark ages.
Squishdot (Score:1)
I can't seem to get a response at all.....
eThreads (Score:1)
I realize I'm a little biased (I did write the thing, after all), but I've found eThreads a lot easier to use than anything else I've seen.
http://ethreads.com [ethreads.com]
e;
For me, O'Reilly WebBoard worth it (Score:1)
I know this package is outside your existing platform, but I've found it reliable and extremely resilient under a heavy load (1000 posts with binary attachments per day). It's also ready to go out-of-the-box and scriptable. Customization is as easy as HTML.
It comes with real-time paging, a variety of chat features, SMTP notification with listservs and
Drawback is the cost: about $1000 for the software plus an NT box. You don't need to fool with IIS as it runs best with the included web server.
Where to get message board software (Score:1)
The CGI Resources List [resourceindex.com] lists a whole slew of message board CGI scripts in perl.. some are free.. some aren't. Check it out
TheSripts
Another one that you really might want to look at is Web Crossing [webcrossing.com] It's not freeware, but it can handle a very large number of users and posts, and runs really well. See Builder Buzz [builder.com] to see it in use.
Phorum and W-agora (Score:1)
phorum and w-agora
www.phorum.com [phorum.com]
http://w-agora.araxe.fr/ [araxe.fr]
because they are both database based, they hold up very well under heavy conditions.
I prefer to use w-agora becuase it is extreamly easy to customize, supports multiple forums, and even multiple sites (for virtual servers).
- daniel
Re:Thoughts (Score:1)
I find this? I am currently working on revamping the slash code.. well basically using it as an example to write a web board for my site. I would
love to see other peoples modifications. The more examples the better:)
Thanks.. Malice95
Sporum! (Score:1)
There is a great set of Perl scripts called Sporum, available at http://www.smallpig.net/sporum/ [smallpig.net]. From the Sporum web site:
Sporum is one of free web-based dicussion board software package available on the internet. What sets the Sporum apart from other online bulletin board systems is its unique interface, extensive administrative features, and easy installation procedure. You can read through the features here [smallpig.net] and check out our demo [smallpig.net] site to see the many ways which Sporum has been implemented.
Sporum is at version 1.2b3 and is definitely worth the time to download and install it.
darren
Re:Where to get message board software (Score:1)
Dave
Re:Thoughts (Score:1)
Dave
web board failed our test....... (Score:1)
First, the original script has been in use for more than four years, with scores of mods. Only over the past year or so, has it shown any signs of wear. The tradeoff with using Matt's script, even modified, is in admin flexiblity and the several well known hacks that can wipe out the message board. Hence the reason I haven't posted the URL here. The last thing I need is a bunch of fucking script kiddies running over there trying to topple the board.
I did buy a copy of Web Board earlier this year. The performance on a dual PII 233 with 512MB RAM (Dell Poweredge 2200) was horrible. There was a nasty issue where Web Board virtually locked up one of the processors. There were also other issues relating to performance.
Support at the ORA site was anything but but helpful, denying any problems, until some other posts meticulously detailed the issue. Then there was no comment. It's a classic case for Open Source, as there were several on the forum with the chops to take a look and fix what was wrong, but the nature of closed software prohibited such.
I'm probably not the only one with whom the irony is not lost on the fact the Tim O'Reilly, while lately pushing OSS models, still has Web Board under an commercial license, for a single platform.
Cost is another issue. Counting NT, SQL Server, Web Board, the cost was near US$3000.00, for software alone. Add hardware and support, plus Resource Kit docs, and it's around US$7000, or US$8000.
The cost of the current solution, including hardware, is about US$2500.00, plus another US$500 or so in ORA books (I DO like the ORA books and CD kits) Our users perceive our current solution as faster, easier to use. We're all about the users, because they are the one's that make it happen.
I've got a few solutions being tested, with the most promising three being W3T (deployed since June), Bazaar (went up two days ago, still beta, but GPL and very promising) and one I'm putting up right now, RPG (suggested by another /.er)
The real problem now, is how to deal with the nearly 30,000 messages in the archive since January.
Dave
Re:Apache Jetspeed (Score:1)
Dave
Re:NNTP? (Score:1)
I didn't choose NNTP for a variety of reasons. Usenet was out of the question. That was about the time that the public started to find Usenet and we all know what happened after that. NNTP, evenon a private server, isn't as flexible as a Web based board to administer. This is a tightly controled forum, though not fully moderated. There are also user configuration issues to deal with, as an NNTP client is not quite as ubiqutious as a browser. Browsers are easy for the pariticipants. We are finding these same user configuration issues, with IRC for our live chat. We have to remember, not everyone is "hooked up", when it comes to using computers. For the widest audience, we have to cater to the lowest common denominator..
Dave
Re:web board failed our test....... (Score:1)
Though the 2.0 version is still alpha and mostly likely a month or so away from even considering production deployment, Mike is pounding away at the code. Source available via CVS tree at nl.linux.org.
Dave
Re:Where to get message board software (Score:1)
Dave
Re:What about mod_perl? (Score:1)
Dave
Thanks for all the replies!! Solution recap... (Score:1)
We've narrowed it down to a few options, in order of preference.....except for Zope, they are all operating on a testing system, still behind the firewall. Zope will go up in the next few hours (if I can get it to run on the RaQ2.... =:-0 )
1)Zope based Squishdot/Confra/Zthreads type solution. Probably the best bet for the future. If I get stuck, I can hire DC to help. Anyone that might disagree, I'd love to hear your opinion. Downside, I don't know Python....but that will change. Time for another visit to Fatbrain.......
2)Bazaar, rewriten from GPL W3T. Still largely alpha. Has a long way to go, and a limited development community. If I were a better coder (or even could be considered a coder), this might make more sense.
3)RPGBoard. Best of the non data base perl scripts, without a doubt. Fast, well documented, good feature set. I could deploy in just a few hours, and have a robust working site. Downside, I'd perfer something with a more broad developer base, extensable in a more modular fashion.(though SineSweeper seems like a cool guy)On the plus side, depending on how well Zope and Bazaar do in the next few weeks of testing, RPG may very well get the nod. It's mature, and stable with solid performance. Though might not be the best long term solution, it works well, right now.
Out of the running.......
Slash....poorly documented, not updated in a timely fashion, and it looks like there might be a fork coming. This is a caveat of Open Source where the community is more into public development than the maintainers. Attitudes from the maintainer (that would be Taco) such as "everytime someone asks about the next release, I delay it another day", speak volumes. I wish the forkers much luck, though I'd be inclined to use a Zope based solution for this type of thing. Instead of forking something that the maintainer isn't really interested in, a better use of energy would be to devote it to another project.....like Zope.
W3T....Scream seems like a cool guy, but the performance is anything but fast. I applaud the work he has done, but based on the comments of others here, and some DBAs I know, W3T code is still too bloated and not optimized, causing performance issues on busy sites. Maybe now that it's commercial, some of these issues can be addressed.
Thanks again, you've all been a big help.
Dave
Try this one :) (Score:1)
Take a look and let me know what you think. At the moment account creation is required but the only reason I haven't changed that is because no one has asked me to, it should only take a minute or two :)
Also, another of my projects Dear Diary [deardiary.net] if anyone wants to take a look at that too :)
NNTP? (Score:1)
True, a lot of people prefer a web-based forum, but News has a lot of advantages:
All the missing bits that these web-based threaded discussion packages offer could be added in with a fairly simple set of scripts. You could have custom home pages for User bios/information, for example.
I'm not really advocating dumping a web-based threaded discussion system for News, for one thing your users would probably really hate the change, but it's something that could be considered.
Re:wwwthreads (Score:1)
Re:wwwthreads (Score:1)
My mistake...
Re:NNTP? (Score:1)
Someone should come up with a really good, drop-in, NNTP server with web based administration. Maybe there is one... I dunno.
The performance of NNTP is quite good and the clients that are included with IE and Netscape are not bad. Having it integrated with mailers is kind of a natural. It's easy for users to manage folders of threads that they want to keep, along with email thread discussions.
Unfortunately, NNTP is harder to administer than it should be and it's not at all flexible.
RPGBoard - A GPL WWWBoard, and it's good! (Score:2)
Multiple forum support
Completely new code (now under the GPL)
New file format with an auto-archive/compress/delete function and file locking
A message previewer/editor, complete with a spell checker
Highly configurable with the web-based RPGBoard Configurator
Selectable backgrounds
Configurable message tags, including a "No Text" tag
Default options and bios for the regulars
Different header styles, including UBB/WWWThreads, WebBBS, the old traditional WWWBoard, and "collapsed threads" mode
Ability to collate replies to simulate a non-threaded look (and for easier browsing)
A message search engine
Name/password detection via cookies
Interactive date/time stamps with timezone capability and recent message color coding
Ability for users (and admins) to delete (or undelete) messages
Partial messages can be saved (good for those really long posts that you don't want to lose)
A complete stats utility
A hidden spoiler message box
Ability to have replies e-mailed to you
Ability to ban IP addresses as well as an Ignore List for users to use
Word filter to block cuss words
IP address/number lookups with proxy detection
Browser/OS detection
Year 2000 compliant (unlike WWWBoard)
Best of all, it's free (and GPL)! I'm not out to make any profit from this. It's simply my part in helping the Internet community have access to a really good message board script. It's really easy to install, too. Just follow the instructions.
http://www.resonatorsoft.com/softwa re/rpgboard/ [resonatorsoft.com]
The Message Board War. [resonatorsoft.com]
Heh...beat me to it... (Score:1)
--
Brendan Byrd AKA SineSwiper (sineswiper@resonatorsoft.com)
$1199?! WHY?!? (Score:1)
--
Brendan Byrd AKA SineSwiper (sineswiper@resonatorsoft.com)