Difference between pages "Talk:Upcoming events" and "Talk:Carver 2.0 Planning Page"

From Forensics Wiki
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (calendar extensions)
 
(Consolidation: new section)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Wiki tables are normally such a pain, but yours look good.
+
License: have we even discussed a license yet?  Who chose it? I'm not terribly opposed to a 3-clause BSD, but...? - [[User:RB|RB]] 00:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the "long list" below is that they are all pasted in and have a lot of html formatting.
+
Really, we should have a database for the conferences. Do you know of a plug-in for mediawiki that does it? (I know that plone sdoes it ,but that would be a major overhaul.)(
+
--------------------------------------------------------------------
+
  
This page is getting pretty long. I like the categories you've made and think they would make an excellent way to break up the page. How about the following:
+
[[User:Joachim Metz|Joachim]] I prefer the LPGL it's restricts the usage of the code somewhat more. When its integrated in other (closed source) tooling which is published, they must publish that the tool uses this code.
  
# [[List of open calls for papers]]
+
:: LGPL?
# [[List of digital forensics conferences]]
+
:: [[User:.FUF|.FUF]] 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
# [[List of ongoing and continuous training opportunities]]
+
:: [[User:Joachim Metz|Joachim]] GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical)
# [[List of scheduled training courses]]
+
:::: ''Joachim I prefer the LPGL'' :) [[User:.FUF|.FUF]] 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 +
:::::: [[User:Joachim Metz|Joachim]] To quote Homer Simpson "Doh!"
 +
:: Agreed.  I sit on the fence between BSD and GPL: the business half of me agrees that open licensing should place as few restrictions or qualifications as possible, whereas the idealist/OSS side wants to ensure the project's freedom.  The LGPL is a more reasonable balance, encouraging widespread use but ensuring modifications' freedom. [[User:RB|RB]] 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  
What do you think? [[User:Jessek|Jessek]] 20:36, 17 August 2007 (PDT)
+
== Consolidation ==
--------------------------------------------------------------------
+
  
I suppose I could break it up.  One of the reasons it is all on one page is that many folks want a single place to look for this sort of information.  I used to send it by email to multiple lists every month, and some folks complained it was too big, but most people said leave it aloneThe move of the list to the ForensicsWiki was to allow me to keep a long list, but have it available on demand, and have it updated in a single location, but still keep the "one list to rule them all" kind of listing.
+
We've got a '''lot''' of good ideas here, but in interest of not stepping on anyone's toes, it's getting rather disjointed and hard to readIs anyone willing to (or allow me to) try to consolidate them into some sort of coherency? I'd like at least one of the admins ([[User:.FUF|FUF]] or [[User:Simsong|Simsong]] to concur before anyone moves forward.  I know the wiki way is to just let it grow, but even watching each addition I'm starting to have trouble visualizing where we are.
 
+
Brian already has a "Conference" listing, which lists conferences, and some of the training providers have listings on a page for training providers/software providers. This was added to be the "upcoming" list, which lists everything by date, more for things in the next month or so, but due to complaints by one person or another, I list everything I know about to keep anyone from suggesting I lean towards one provider or another.
+
[[User:Frnzxguy|Frnzxguy]] 13:49, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
+
--------------------------------------------------------------------
+
I don't know if Brian is maintaining his conference list or not. I would very much like to have a database-driven list of the conferences and training. How about doing it as a Google Calendar? We can link that over here. [[User:Simsong|Simsong]] 22:54, 31 August 2007 (PDT)
+
--------------------------------------------------------------------
+
I can look into it.  I have thought about a DB driven approach before, but even with a DB back-end, we still have to think of how we present it to the typical user, and who can edit/update the database.  And, with the wiki, it is easy to undo spammer hits to the list... a DB may not be quite as simple to revert, depending upon how it's set up.
+
[[User:Frnzxguy|Frnzxguy]] 08:05, 04 September 2007 (EDT)
+
--------------------------------------------------------------------
+
 
+
== calendar extensions ==
+
 
+
I've done some research and have come up with three calendar extensions for the wiki:
+
 
+
 
+
# with iCal: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SpecialCalendar
+
# with short blurbs: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Hex2bit/Calendar
+
# all: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Calendar
+
 
+
I'm probably going to install one or two of these over the next few days. Any opinions? [[User:Simsong|Simsong]] 23:39, 10 September 2007 (PDT)
+
 
+
:The Hex2Bit calendar looks great, but unfortunately that's the only one that has a screenshot. Do you have a image or demonstration of the the first one (that works with iCal)? Having iCal support would be a great addition, but it's not a deal breaker for me. [[User:Jessek|Jessek]] 06:33, 12 September 2007 (PDT)
+
 
+
Okay. The iCal version Extension:SpecialCalendar is too hard to author in, so that one is out.
+
So I think I'm going with Hex2bit's version. [[User:Simsong|Simsong]] 10:00, 12 September 2007 (PDT)
+

Revision as of 12:48, 1 November 2008

License: have we even discussed a license yet? Who chose it? I'm not terribly opposed to a 3-clause BSD, but...? - RB 00:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Joachim I prefer the LPGL it's restricts the usage of the code somewhat more. When its integrated in other (closed source) tooling which is published, they must publish that the tool uses this code.

LGPL?
.FUF 19:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Joachim GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License (LGPL) (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical)
Joachim I prefer the LPGL :) .FUF 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Joachim To quote Homer Simpson "Doh!"
Agreed. I sit on the fence between BSD and GPL: the business half of me agrees that open licensing should place as few restrictions or qualifications as possible, whereas the idealist/OSS side wants to ensure the project's freedom. The LGPL is a more reasonable balance, encouraging widespread use but ensuring modifications' freedom. RB 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation

We've got a lot of good ideas here, but in interest of not stepping on anyone's toes, it's getting rather disjointed and hard to read. Is anyone willing to (or allow me to) try to consolidate them into some sort of coherency? I'd like at least one of the admins (FUF or Simsong to concur before anyone moves forward. I know the wiki way is to just let it grow, but even watching each addition I'm starting to have trouble visualizing where we are.