


Developer don't care about it anymore ? That's up to him, I DO CARE and i wanted to use it ! See the problem ? Developers fault by some "standards" but it's the end user who suffers.
Moderators: tydust, LorenzoG, timothy.stiffler
maia wrote:Come on - I say now. Have you ever heard of stable versions ? When a version becomes stable is up to the developer to work upon a new version, you can't impose that. Joomla Downloader is a perfect example: It works, period. Right now it's considered a dead project. Stable=dead![]()
![]()
Not listed, game over. How about that ?
Developer don't care about it anymore ? That's up to him, I DO CARE and i wanted to use it ! See the problem ? Developers fault by some "standards" but it's the end user who suffers.
Tonie wrote:
Security vs availability. MamboXchange had availability above security. We all saw where that went last summer as hackers systematically downloaded all extensions, found hacks, and started using their botpark to scan for insecure websites. If you check your Apache log, I'm sure that a lot of the automate attacks from that period can still be found. For any piece of software, arguably even more on web software, security is the start, beginning and the end of creating software. Extensions that have security problems, reflects badly on the software Joomla! and all other extensions around. To do any form of security, you need accountability. If we do a poll among developers what we should do with extensions which have been abandoned, I know what the outcome of that will be.
vizion2000 wrote:Do you realise this would amount to a policy by JED to take implied responsibility for insecure extensions and consequent damages arising from successful hacking of user web sites?
If so the JED will soon be crippled by lawsuits!!
mpettitt wrote:vizion2000 wrote:Do you realise this would amount to a policy by JED to take implied responsibility for insecure extensions and consequent damages arising from successful hacking of user web sites?
If so the JED will soon be crippled by lawsuits!!
Why would it amount to that? If you link to a page from your website, which then gets compromised with malicious software, are you responsible for any damage caused to users who followed your link? Of course not. Likewise, if you link to software which turns out to have a flaw in it, it's the software author that is responsible, not the people who have linked to it. Do you take responsibility if you proactively remove links to pages or software which you have been told contain problems? No, you're just behaving sensibly. It's exactly the same with the JED - the link is removed, and restored when problems have been resolved.
That's a much more lenient policy than most spam blacklists, for example, have...
Vimes wrote:You're making argument for argument's sake because you have a need to kick up a fuss. I don't know why, maybe you're just trolling or in the mood for a fight, but either way your statements don't hold water.
Google themselves freely admit that they unlist sites that are hacked, which is a direct parallel to what we do here, which is refusing to list some sites until reported issues can be either rectified or confirmed bogus.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-googl ... ked-sites/
Please, either come up with some sensible arguments or slink back to usenet where your trolling is appreciated.
Vimes wrote:JED has always been about providing the best possible quality listing of current components. If a component has been abandoned by the developer then it is not possible to confirm that it is constantly being reviewed for security issues (as is the responsibility of any developer) therefore we err on the side of caution and remove those listings. If you cannot see the logic of this then I'm sorry, but you're best off creating your own, independent listing as we have nothing more to offer you.
vizion2000 wrote:Joomla users have a need for reliability of sources and consistent availability of extensions. Popcorn
Joomla users need to know that their needs comes first. Cry
The core question is how can those neeeds be met? Undecided
vizion2000 wrote:I hope you can find a way to move in that direction.![]()
MMMedia wrote:vizion2000 wrote:Joomla users have a need for reliability of sources and consistent availability of extensions. Popcorn
Joomla users need to know that their needs comes first. Cry
The core question is how can those neeeds be met? Undecided
These needs are being met by the JED. If you feel that the JED is not the right solution for you, you are free to create what ever solution suits you. No one is stopping you from creating what you specifically want.
Enough already, you are repeating yourself and abusing the forums and other users by masking profanity and misstating law.
AmyStephen wrote:vizion2000 wrote:I hope you can find a way to move in that direction.![]()
David -
What happened to all that talk about you creating a server for us?Your adoring community awaits!
Amy
MMMedia wrote:What you are not understanding is that extensions don't belong to the community. Extensions belong to their respective individual developers.
You need to understand that. It is your misunderstanding of that basic principle that is causing you to repeat yourself over and over again.
vizion2000 wrote:I am into that -- when I said I would be willing to do it I also said I would not do it on my own.
If we can find another two like minded people I am willing for four of us to go ahead and create a core team.