Talk:OsCommerce

Key Features Section

I notice that the Key Features Section reads a bit like an ad, could someone clean that up?Sneezy555 (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The Limitations section refers simply to existing features that are not as currently stated on the osCommerce site. It is not meant to be a section that disparages the overall design of the application. Therefore I have removed statements related to things like slow page loads which is not a community wide issue.

I appreciate the cleanup, but I wonder if this sentence "All of the above can be resolved and should not deter anyone from using this popular open source product" has NPOV WP:NPOV? This isn't my page, so I won't edit, but I thought I'd throw it out there. 129.93.177.29 23:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just had another shot at cleaning it up, stripping the text that appeared to be mere puffery. I wasn't sure what to do with the following sentence though: "Beyond the basic functionality, osCommerce is able to be augmented, via either community-supplied add-ons or custom code, meaning that it can be customized to meet the specific needs of any business." Isn't that true of all software, and especially all open source software? Should the sentence just be entirely nuked? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

its probably worth mentioning that oscommerce code is unbearable to work with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.198.82 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's really not once you get the hang of it, 24.45.198.82 Pale2hall (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Must Read Article for Newbies "Oscommerce Road Map for the newbies"

I suggest we add this link to the links section as an introduction to oscommerce.

• http://forums.oscommerce.com/index.php?showtopic=307356

As a newbie to oscommerce AND php, i feel the need to contribute in some way. The ONE thing that I feel I can help with is OTHER newbies. I know EXACTLY what their confusion feels like, and the FIRST thing that you NEED to understand is the file structure of oscommerce, and it is one of the MOST confusing aspects to newbies like myself.

So here goes your road map to the oscommerce file structure.

gioto (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, why should it link to a tutorial for people installing the program? Not only that, but a very specific subset of those people - those new to both PHP and OSC. -brostorm9k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.117.211 (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not Added to main article

• The osCommerce Project - a fork of osCommerce

gioto (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

thats right it is not added to the article? gioto (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this "The New osCommerce Project"? It's not osCommerce and doesn't even look like an active project, there is nothing there but a very lite promo page. Proxy User (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it everything is happening in the Forums for this fork of oscommerce gioto (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Branches

• forks, ELOADED

Removed from article as not notable gioto (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

References

A section for each main version?

I think the history would read a bit nicer if there was a split and the info about the development of v2.x and v3.x were under separate sub-headings. Also, somebody needs to add info about http://blogs.oscommerce.com/post/3855902100/countdown-to-v3-0 seeing as how osC 3 is going to be finally released after 3 or 4 years of development.Pale2hall (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2 and 3 are totally different animals with a unique look and feel in both the main catalog and the administration. They are build on completely different foundations, and operate as such. It may be worth noting that 3.0 isnt necessarily better than 2.x, and that they are just different, no matter what their version numbers imply.Pale2hall (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack Vulnerable ??

I have seen many recent attempts to access the oscommerce shop and catalog directories on several sites hosted on my server. Is there a security hole being probed for ???

DGerman (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed several probes to access the nonexistent oscommerce directories on my server. Added folders with those names to redirect the attempts to a forbidden page.22yearswothanks (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OsCommerce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140711211643/http://oscommerce.com/ to http://www.oscommerce.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)