Pete

There was a way to hide the two menus that popped up for non-superuser folks. In sidenav.inc in the admin template module, just at the start of the function I added this: if ($p->name == 'page' && !wire('user')->hasRole('superuser') || $p->name == 'setup' && !wire('user')->hasRole('superuser')) { return ''; } For some reason, doing isSuperuser() didn't work in this case. If it works for someone else using wire('user')->isSuperuser() then it may be because of some overridden permissions in one of my modules I guess. It's a fairly easy workaround, but not particularly futureproof!

There's a permission for viewing a page and a permission for editing a page. Assigning the page edit permission to a role means they see the Pages page in the admin. There are situations where I don't want them to be able to see that (custom intranets). It would be nice if it was possible to have a separate permission to decide whether or not to show that page. There is a way to code around it in the admin template and only show it for roles that I specify, but it would be nice if there was a way to do it with permissions.

Hi Pravin There's a manual way: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/3987-cmscritic-development-case-study/ Or a new converter - install this: https://github.com/adrianbj/ProcessMigrator then this: https://github.com/NicoKnoll/MigratorWordpress and follow the instructions on the second link there The topic discussing the migrator is roughly here: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/4420-page-list-migrator/page-6

My face when the logo appears -> My face when it disappears -> Repeat...

A problem arises when uploading multiple files though - there is no order as first to finish uploading (smallest) will be first in the list and so on. Single files - yes it would be nice to have it optional but I have a feeling we've discussed this before (if anyone can find the topic though and link to ryan's reply that would be great).

The whole thing does make me scratch my head I must admit, because the ICO suggest in their 30-page document that you should, as a bare minimum, make a page listing cookies used on the site and make the link stand out more from other links - maybe at the top of the page. Scroll down to the footer to see theirs: http://ico.org.uk/

Being one of those rebellious few many that ignores the "cookie law", this amused me: As did their site here: http://nocookielaw.com/

I've never really used a Mac. The few times I have (one time because someone had the only copy of Photoshop on it in a small company) I was told it was bulletproof and never goes wrong. I'd crashed it within a few days just using Photoshop. I suspect it was a slightly ageing Mac, but I'm quite skeptical about hype and still don't get why at either Windows or Mac launches the crowd cheers even for features that are bog-standard - especially when it's nothing new or innovative. I would love it if they were forced to launch in front of real critics. Not haters of either camp, but people with a genuinely open mind. What I really hate about the internet is you can find a zillion iPhone 6: What You Need To Know "news" posts filled with conjecture that seem to keep those news sites alive (and I bet we get a lot of hits just because I typed that phrase in here - I'll keep an eye on Google Analytics ). Everyone gets over-excited about... well... things that aren't a big deal lately, and all the big players are just suing each other. Something I do admire about Apple is free OS upgrades - certainly a good way to increase adoption of a new system. That said, you're paying way over the odds for the hardware purely because of looks, so it's nice to get something for free now your wallet is empty Personally, I have had several iPhones because at the time they were the best - right up to the iPhone 4 where "you're not holding it right" forced me to conclude "you're not building and/or testing it right" so my next purchase was a Windows Phone. Then I moved to Android because Windows Phone reminded me that less mature systems just don't have any of the apps I want (although that may have changed in the last 6 months). I develop/design and play games on a Windows PC. It's custom-built and boots in about 8-10 seconds on Windows 8.1. Despite all the hoo-hah about Windows 8, it is faster and more stable than 7 so I can forgive them their little quirks with the new design (I literally just use the Start screen for searching - what it was intended for as the Start menu replacement - and placing quick launch links, I don't have much use for the Metro apps). The desktop is still there, my apps still run, quicker in fact, so I'm happy with what I've got. "To each their own" and all that Something I have invested in recently is a Synology NAS box to store media on. It also serves as a web server so I can get it to grab website backups - not that I don't trust my hosting company, but you can never be too careful with backups so having something set up to grab me local copies without having to leave my PC on all the time is nice.

Forgot to say hi - Hi Jordan

Having had simple sites in other systems, a lot of my clients are actually finding it easy to use Processwire without an interface that holds their hand the whole way. Aside from making more modules like the blog module to really make it more like other systems (every page type with its own menu item and not navigating the page tree) I'm not sure what could make it much simpler for clients. Once you explain the tree structure to them and give them some simple training they get it. I think there's a balance to be struck between making things easy to use and dumbing things down too much. I understand where the blog module fits in though in that it's a more complex beast and there are some killer features in there, bit for the majority of small sites I've not needed anything other than normal templates to get clients up and running with news pages, galleries and event calendars - they're all simple templates to set up. I've also never needed the image manager type of module. I've not yet come across a project where I've needed to re-sent an image - I suspect when I do it will only be the odd one here and there anyway I'm not meaning to argue with everything you guys have said above, but point out that I've got by without most of it I do look forward to each new module that comes out though as unlike certain really huge platforms (WP) they tend to do different things (not a dozen photo galleries for example) and I make a note in my head of one's I think will be useful on certain sites, but for the small sites mentioned in the first post I dint tend to use many modules at all for general stuff like portfolios, galleries, news etc.

Look up "Php heredoc" on Google and you will find everything you need on the subject The first result in the list at Php.net explains it pretty well.

Loving these additions ryan. One question though - is it more efficient the old way (separate selectors) or the new way? Do these new options make a more efficient DB query (as in one with some joins instead of two in the case of sub selectors) or is there not much in it?

Without testing it and just looking at the .htaccess file it looks like it should work since the .htaccess is routing images through the PHP script. ProCache bypasses PHP using .htaccess so it should be possible to make the two compatible. It will slow your page load times slightly as it has to fire up PHP to check some things, but would still be quicker than doing it without ProCache on at all. I can't help thinking though that there is a way to do this without PHP at all. Since you can write some code in ProcessWire to create any size versions of images you require (think about hooking page save and producing your variations then) all you need then surely is some JS to detect screen size and load the appropriate sized image, falling back to the largest. The advantage here is no PHP is used at all. I make it sound so easy, but it's probably not

Really neat idea (I changed the title by the way ).

I would stick them in an autoload module. If you have a few small bits of code and are worried about creating lots of small autoload modules like I often do that are only useful on certain sites then you could create a little utility module just for that site and chuck them all in there. It's more efficient as well than having lots of separate tiny autoload modules.

RSS via IFTTT doesn't sound like it would be instant though. This would be pretty much real-time and something you can add anywhere in any project.

This is pretty neat: https://pushover.net/ I had been thinking it would be great to have a notification app that you could somehow use with ProcessWire and this - with a little programming - would do nicely! Notifications of new comments on your site? No problem. Built your own client support system in PW? Get push notifications of new tickets. The possibilities are endless and the price tag isn't bad - free for up to 7,500 notifications per month and only $4.99 per user for the app In fact, I already know a few clients who would love notifications of certain things to arrive this way!

Welcome guys - the more the merrier

Nice and simple

If you guys want some hi-res assets (Skyscrapers, clouds, PW mark and logotype) here's a zip file you'll really like. All contents are free to use. Open Sans should contain the license file with it (it's from Google Fonts anyway) and is only included because I was going to have a title slide after the logo faded in and out where I wanted to use a font that was consistent, but obviously you can do what you like on your own videos Use the files if you like, if not then maybe you can use the PSD file to make yourself a nice ProcessWire desktop wallpaper like I have My thought was that this site is the first place people would look, but to be honest if we get a lot of videos then as long as the videos page on the ProcessWire.com site can be changed to perhaps categorise them if we get lots (which we know it can because it's written in ProcessWire ) then that would work equally as well. PW Assets.zip

Here you go: http://modules.processwire.com/modules/page-edit-field-permission/ There's a module for that™ EDIT: I'm honestly unsure whether it disables the field or hides it. I assume the former as otherwise it could potentially mess with the layout of your template.

Charles - sorry, I did only link to one article as it was the most recent one to hand on Google, but if I'd mentioned every country that's not playing fair then I may as well just link to Google Earth It's obviously clear now you were referring to data prviacy laws and not intending to bring up national security scandals. In an attempt to add some balance, in the UK we have GCHQ who like to work with the NSA on interesting projects (apparently we like to perv at webcam images) as well as everything else GCHQ is "monitoring" so we're certainly no better. To think that other countries aren't doing the same is certainly naive, but when it happens in countries like the US and the UK who both purport to hold freedom so dearly, it's clear why these incidents make such an impact in the news headlines. Bear in mind we're supposed to be protected by those same European privacy laws you mention and our own spying agency is clearly part of the problem and you can begin to see why I think the whole idea of privacy is a little laughable in the face of these incidents - it's not the ones where they make the official requests to access your data that are the truly scary ones is my point. It's certainly a global problem with no solution in sight and is certainly a discussion for another topic (probably on another forum) and it's one that I don't know enough about to discuss at any great length so we should probably just leave it there now I've balanced it out a little You do raise a very valid point about choosing a country where the law is more on your side if you were ever asked to turn over data through official channels. You don't want a webhost where they won't let you mount any legal defense before handing over data for example. It's clear now that this was the point you were trying to make in the first place so hopefully the rest of my reply has balanced things out a little. I agree with horst though - let's get back to the topic

Thanks all. I think if I'm honest I don't have the time to learn to play with unmanaged, so will probably stick with managed. I do tend to read reviews and get second opinions before choosing a host, plus asking the sales teams at various hosts questions before taking the plunge, plus I don't tend to put much on new hosting the first month or so just to test it out. If you could explain though that would be great as you could be referring to several things. Latency is the obvious thing, but you could also be referring to NSA snooping, but since this article says they've been interfering with networking gear and Cisco (and other US manufacturers, this was the first to spring to mind) is in most datacentres... well... not really a lot I can do about that except hide in a basement and distribute websites via CD (didn't that used to be a thing back in the 90's? ). I know, it's a serious topic, but there's really only so far you can go in protecting data - choosing the right web host is certainly part of that. @pwired - 50mb upload speed is not good if you have any decent number of visitors viewing your sites or have any sites with some popular downloads on you will be throttling their speeds. It might seem fast to you if you're on a network connected directly to your home server, but to everyone else out there viewing your sites over that connection it could really suck. In the UK at least you'll be routing from your house to a British Telecom exchange before it gets routed onto a big datacentre or something before it hits the fast network links that run the length of the country. If you host with a proper company at a real datacentre they have links directly to these high speed links and you're cutting out links in between. This reduces latency. Then there's 24/7 staff at datacentres, redundant power supplies in the servers, redundant power to the racks, backup generators if the power fails - lots of redundancy in place that I can't replicate myself, especially when us mere mortals sleep a third of the day on average

I assume that was a joke? If so, very funny If not, then there is a huge difference between self-hosting and going with a hosting company (latency, bandwidth, hardware quality, redundant connections etc - the list goes on). Most hosting companies operate from datacentres with massive bandwidth whereas home internet, even fibre-optic broadband just doesn't cut it. And enterprise grade drives run at £400+ per drive. And the servers they run on are a few thousand pounds. And so on and so on... So yes, hosting with a real hosting hosting company will be better by many orders of magnitude!

Hi folks The past few years I've been going for managed VPS solutions for my hosting. I always liked the fact that during setup of the new VPS I could send the support team a list of things I need and they would set them up for me. I also liked the relative ease of using WHM and cPanel over the command line. My problem is with how much is usually charged for the privilege. I realise I will always pay a premium for WHM and cPanel (what hosting companies charge varies wildly) but for "managed", most UK companies hike up the costs to a ridiculous level with nothing in between "unmanaged" and "managed". To clarify, all I want is that initial setup to be done by someone, then if I run into trouble with something I can just bounce some ideas of a support guy/gal and ask them to install something if I'm not sure. My support requests are generally in the region of 4 a year, if that sometimes. It's a shame nobody seems to do "per-incident" support with hosting. There is a massive gulf between what US and UK companies charge. I have no trouble with my current provider, Servint, but the closest datacentre to me is in Amsterdam. The connection is quick, but it would be nice to use someone like UK2.net where the servers are closer and things load that fraction quicker. They offer WHM and cPanel for an additional fee on their VPS package and the package I would need then comes into line with the prices I'm paying with ServInt, but they won't install anything. So I guess my question is: how hard is it to actually manage your own server from the command line? I mean things like upgrading PHP, mySQL etc, installing modules and so on? I like my safety net, and I guess as long as I had a host that could allow me to roll back to an image I would still have a safety net (with careful planning of upgrades out of normal hours) but like many people I am comfortable with an expert on-hand and fear change EDIT: Might have found an excellent, managed option with London datacentre options and reasonable pricing: http://www.futurehosting.com/ EDIT2: For cheaper than my current package I can also have running on SSDs? Where is my wallet?! On a more serious note, I'm not going to be silly and jump in right away with anything - I've been through various hosting companies over more than a decade (feeling old now) and know not to rush in just because something looks amazing. Edit The Third: But I'm still interested to hear people's thoughts on unmanaged and any links to required reading in that area that you guys recommend (I could Google, but that will return about a billion articles and I'm after advice from my peers ).