Who is qcdadmin??

[shaohao]

Paul or Matt ??:ninja:

[Hanzo]

Maybe they both are the QCDAdmin ?

[Heigar]

Paul or Matt ??:ninja:
Probably both depending on which one wants to be.

[DeltaGuy]

I'd venture Matt, because he maintains the Website and Forums...
Paul is the Developer...
Why would they need a separate Admin account, though? Aren't they able to simply give their normal account Admin powers?

[chicubs]

Ive only heard of qcdadmin being matt.

[Young Twig]

I believe forums like phpBB & vBulliten automaticaly create 1 user (an administrator) when the forums are installed. The name of this user is also the cPanel name or the username for the hosting. So, qcdadmin would be the website login name... I think.

If so, that should be Matt.

[DeltaGuy]

phpBB creates one Admin user, but it gives you the ability to add more admins, and to change the username of this admin user. Note that normal users cannot change usernames in phpBB, but Admins can change usernames from the Admin Control Panel...

[Young Twig]

phpBB creates one Admin user, but it gives you the ability to add more admins, and to change the username of this admin user. Note that normal users cannot change usernames in phpBB, but Admins can change usernames from the Admin Control Panel...
I would assume it's the same way with vB. Paul and Matt could have left it anyway.

[DeltaGuy]

Is vB based on phpBB in any way?

[Young Twig]

Is vB based on phpBB in any way?
I always assumed vB was created first and phpBB was created later as a free alternative. I don't know, though.

[DeltaGuy]

I would have assumed that phpBB was created first, and because the code is Open Source, vB took the code, made some additions to it, and starting selling it commercially...

[Young Twig]

Is that even legal? It is their code.

[DeltaGuy]

phpBB is Open Source
It's perfectly legal, in fact it's the entire philosophy of the Open Source Movement
Free the Code!

[Young Twig]

I wouldn't know... :)

[Qaz]

Maybe it's legal, but I personally that very questionable thing to do (did I get it right that vB is commercial product?).

[DeltaGuy]

It's not a questionable thing to do at all, it's the entire open source philosophy...
It's done VERY frequently in the Open Source world, the majority of the popular Linux distros are created like this...
Look at the Open Office / Star Office scenario. Open Office is a free Office Suite, that is open source. They create their code for free, create an office product, and make their code avaiable for anyone to use. Star Office is owned by Sun Microsystems, it is basically Open Office, with some extras and commercial benefits, such as support. Star Office is a commercial product, that is sold for $69.99, the last time I checked. Sun, then in return for Open Office helping develop Star Office, donates large amounts to the Open Office Foundation on a Voluntary basis, although these donations work to their advantage. The more money Sun gives Open Office, the better product Open Office can make, the better product Sun can modify to turn into Star Office, and more copies they will sell, the more money Sun makes, the more money they donate to Open Office, to make more improvements...
In this method, it is perfectly legal to use Open Source code to make a commercial product, with no obligations to pay for the code at all. This way, both the Open Source Community and the Commercial Community benefit, not to mention the user, which gets a good office suite for free, or a great office suite for only $69.99, vs hundreds of dollars if they bought Microsoft Offive...
vB being based on phpBB's code is not only perfectly legal, if it is true, but quite respectable. It's part of the GPL (Gnu Public License)...

[Qaz]

I just have disagree with that open source philosophy of yours. So, Open office creates a fine product. Sun micorsystems takes the code, alters it a bit and starts selling it. What I see is that Sun microsystem collects the money from other people work. Allright, they give donations which compensates things, but I don't think this is the case all the time.

So my point was that in cases like this, right people don't get credit from their work.

An example. Quintessential player is made by open source. Some big software company comes and makes their version of it. Let's call it Quintessential playah. Only $19.95 ;)

But no offense meant.

[chicubs]

wow, this is way offtopic now. :robot:

[Heigar]

wow, this is way offtopic now. :robot:Ha Ha i was thinking the same thing : way off topic and how quickly it happens.

[manymosi]

Chicubs - I noticed your signature no longer says the Cubs hopefully welcome Pudge Rodriguez. I guess thats because my Tigers scooped him up. :laugh:

[Hanzo]

Chicubs - I noticed your signature no longer says the Cubs hopefully welcome Pudge Rodriguez. I guess thats because my Tigers scooped him up. :laugh:
Speaking of off topics :gasmask:

[DeltaGuy]

I just have disagree with that open source philosophy of yours. So, Open office creates a fine product. Sun micorsystems takes the code, alters it a bit and starts selling it. What I see is that Sun microsystem collects the money from other people work. Allright, they give donations which compensates things, but I don't think this is the case all the time. So my point was that in cases like this, right people don't get credit from their work. The right people still get all the credit. In Star Office, the loading splash screen proudly says "based on Open Office, by the OpenOffice.org foundation" and this is stated in their credits along with links to openoffice.org.
In Open Source, no one owns the code, it is freely available for anyone to use, with a few small restrictions. We don't believe in copyrights or patents, because these restrict the advancement of the code. The Source Code must always be released, however...
And yes, if you do take the Source Code of an Open Source product, and not release it under the GPL, make the new Source Code freely available, and give credit to the original foundation, Open Source gets mad, very mad, and kills your product. Read what happened when someone violated these terms of use Here (http://miranda-icq.sourceforge.net/zeez-im/030718-license.html) and Here (http://miranda-icq.sourceforge.net/zeez-im/). If you don't follow the restrictions for using open source very carefully, we bite...
Try reading this Definition of Open Source (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)...

An example. Quintessential player is made by open source. Some big software company comes and makes their version of it. Let's call it Quintessential playah. Only $19.95 ;) And why not? As long as people know that a free QCD exists, it would be their choice to use either Free QCD or Playah.

[Qaz]

This really isn't taking us anywhere, does it?

[DeltaGuy]

In Chorus: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....