• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Ghost is very similar to Cake in it's writing and commenting interface, it's a joy to use, but it's not really suitable to run a multi-poster and many comments site like Cake at all.

      NodeBB  is based on the same kind of event driven node.js architecture as Ghost, which makes is really fast compared to most PHP based forum software, and it would be an option that would need a lot less work.

      Aside from that there is forum software. Xenforo, of course, which is a more "traditional" forum platform I guess, but also something like Discourse or Flarum. We are in the middle of implementing a Flarum based forum for a client and I'm really liking it.

      Personally, if it were my project, I would seriously be looking at the options for reducing the maintanence and dev costs of Cake as it runs now but staying with the custom codebase that it has. I'd open-source the code and try to attract people to participate in developing new features, reduce reliance on any expensive external dependencies and replace things that can be replaced with good well maintained opensource libraries.

      I love the look and feel and function of Cake as is, and that would be the best way to preserve and build on those things.

      If that's not an option then any of the things I've listed above would be a good base for building a new version. I'd probably shy away from Discourse because it's heavy in resource use and it just looks like Discourse which is everywhere already. NodeBB, Flarum or Xenforo would be fine though.

    • Chris, with parler being kicked off of the AWS cloud today you're seeing some of them coming here.

      Just a heads up.

    • I'd just throttle it down a bit on 'simmer', leave it with one CPU and 64 Mega Bytes of Ram, replace hard disk with a floppy.. It will be a bit sluggish but hey, who can look a gift horse in the mouth? And power it with solar energy..

      ..else I really don't know what else to say!!! Im gonna miss "Cake"

    • Wow Chris. I just ran across this as I was thinking about sharing my latest podcast episode. First of all, I am genuinely sorry to hear this. I do believe you and your team had built something special. I really did enjoy my time on Cake but there was a point where I felt that at least for me, my form of engagement, wasn't really a good fit for Cake. Without a doubt it was more me than your network. I have found podcasting to be a good fit for me as I am not restricted as much in the confines of the written word in my exchanging of ideas. (But man has there been some incredible exchanges on Cake - for awhile there nothing could match it) BTW if you are ever interested, I would love to have you on the Podcast to talk about your experiences and your role in this ever evolving plot to build a better web. My podcast is All the best to you Chris and thank you for building something so special!!

    • I am/will be sad to see Cake go. In terms of saving the content, I think a worthy approach would be to try and contact the team to see if it's feasible to get the site crawled and archived before the lights go out. I am very thankful for everyone who made this space possible and had great conversations going. Getting a critical mass is never a simple thing, and sometimes it just doesn't happen. We barely made it with, even though it was initially just an attempt to rescue the remains of the original Friendfeed's audience.

    • I sad to see this go, but it was great whilst it lasted.
      I am fairly to new to Cake but it was basically love at first type. I wanted this to last longer.

      Is it possible instead of archiving transfer ownership maybe and keep it active as this is the closest to being the best thing on the net at the moment?

    • After more than a hundred posts of hope, ideas, discussion and the chance that Cake may not disappear entirely....

      ... the last couple of posts seem to be all saying bye bye.

      Is it all now decided, did I miss a memo somewhere?

    • If you missed it I did too. I thought traffic had been looking up over the last 2 weeks.

    • Is it possible instead of archiving transfer ownership maybe and keep it active as this is the closest to being the best thing on the net at the moment?

      I honestly have no idea on running costs - operating websites is not free (even without any personnel, which is usually not that great an idea in itself, because stuff breaks), and it adds up over time. @Chris can probably weigh in on any such ideas and provide some ballpark figures.