Jump to content

IPB 2.1.3 Released

Guest IPS News

By Guest IPS News
in Feedback

Recommended Posts

bgrd Newbie

bgrd

Posted
Posted

New Display Name and quark...please stop. ;) This thread really isn't for support either, though I try to help everyone out here as best as possible. If you guys need to argue or call names, do it in pm, or off site. Thanks!



Thanks bfarber and be sure your assistance is appreciated :thumbsup:
  • Replies 546
  • Created
  • Last Reply
bfarber Grand Master

bfarber

Posted
Posted

Well, we haven't ruled out trying to get a WebTV working post area. It's just something that will need to be looked into. :)

And no one is stopping anyone from creating or using a low bandwidth skin, etc. But should we be required to make it? A great default skin comes with the software, and I don't think it's very feasable for us to spend too much time on providing alternative skins with the software. That seems to be more of an addon (and not a bad one, just not something that we should necessarily spend the time working on when we could be working on the software itself). :)

Sam A Explorer

Sam A

Posted
Posted

Well, we haven't ruled out trying to get a WebTV working post area. It's just something that will need to be looked into. :)



And no one is stopping anyone from creating or using a low bandwidth skin, etc. But should we be required to make it? A great default skin comes with the software, and I don't think it's very feasable for us to spend too much time on providing alternative skins with the software. That seems to be more of an addon (and not a bad one, just not something that we should necessarily spend the time working on when we could be working on the software itself). :)



We were promised alternate skins last year IIRC, wouldn't a low bandwidth skin fall into that category?
New Display Name Newbie

New Display Name

Posted
Posted

And no one is stopping anyone from creating or using a low bandwidth skin, etc. But should we be required to make it? A great default skin comes with the software, and I don't think it's very feasable for us to spend too much time on providing alternative skins with the software. That seems to be more of an addon (and not a bad one, just not something that we should necessarily spend the time working on when we could be working on the software itself). :)



The easiest way to get a low bandwidth skin is to import a copy of the default skin in the usual way, then delete the contents of the graphic folder. You then assign this skin to search engines.

:)
bfarber Grand Master

bfarber

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure that would be a good idea, as it would cause a lot of 404 (not found) links to images, which may not reflect well. Then again, I'm not an expert on search engine spiders.

We were promised alternate skins last year IIRC, wouldn't a low bandwidth skin fall into that category?



I was not here last year, so I will have to confer with Matt on that.
ccie9277 Newbie

ccie9277

Posted
Posted

We were promised alternate skins last year IIRC, wouldn't a low bandwidth skin fall into that category?



I agree this would be great, I don't know why the lofi version cannot be modified such that you can post from it.

In addition it would be nice if there was some way to allow certain groups access to certain skin files as apposed to just hidden or not.
Logan Mentor

Logan

Posted
Posted

I don't think a full-fledged new skin is requied. Just a much more improved version of the "Lo-Fi", for posting and all other parts of the board, profiles, members list, etc... wait... I suppose that would be a whole new skin since Lo-Fi is really only for forums / topics. But wouldn't be that hard to make would it? It'd just be a barebones skin.

ccie9277 Newbie

ccie9277

Posted
Posted

I don't think a full-fledged new skin is requied. Just a much more improved version of the "Lo-Fi", for posting and all other parts of the board, profiles, members list, etc... wait... I suppose that would be a whole new skin since Lo-Fi is really only for forums / topics. But wouldn't be that hard to make would it? It'd just be a barebones skin.



Right, a lot of my users want a "work friendly" skin, I had one stripped down before in 1.3 but it would be nice if there were a way to strip everything (smilies and such) like in the lofi version but you could still post from it.

With my business I also used to offer an ad free environment (different skin) when I had 1.3 for folks in certain member groups, I wish IPB had a default option for allowing group assignment of skins.
FancyDining Newbie

FancyDining

Posted
Posted

I agree this would be great, I don't know why the lofi version cannot be modified such that you can post from it.


I don't think this is exactly what you are looking for, but I have posted a little hack that adds a "reply" link to the lofi version.
Myr Rising Star

Myr

Posted
Posted

We are looking at the possibility of adding WebTV support back into IPB, but be aware of the following problems:



1) WebTV is almost obsolete.


2) It's built on NS 4 / IE 4 technology which is almost five years old now.


3) An increasing number of websites will simply fail to work on WebTV


...



This may make it into IPB 2.1.4 but it's not guaranteed.



Matt,
Thank you for the response.
Myr
szuf Newbie

szuf

Posted
Posted

Ajax, quick topic edition:

IPB WARNING [2] html_entity_decode(): charset `iso-8859-2' not supported, assuming iso-8859-1 (Line: 334 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)

IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1151 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)

IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1152 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)

IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1153 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)

IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1154 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)

IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1155 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)

Been Told Newbie

Been Told

Posted
Posted

Just uploaded the 2.1.3 to my newly acquired forum hosting plan with IPB.
When I try to run the installer I get this message and nothing else:

Fatal error: Unable to read 56081 bytes in /home/******/public_html/sources/ipsclass.php on line 0



Any idea anyone? I tried re-uploading ipsclass.php a few times and it didn't change anything.

bfarber Grand Master

bfarber

Posted
Posted

Ajax, quick topic edition:



IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1151 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php) IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1152 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php) IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1153 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php) IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1154 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php) IPB WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/site/5011/www/init.php:269) (Line: 1155 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)

IPB WARNING [2] html_entity_decode(): charset `iso-8859-2' not supported, assuming iso-8859-1 (Line: 334 of /sources/action_public/xmlout.php)






Submit a ticket and I will patch this issue for you. The fix will be included with the next release.

Just uploaded the 2.1.3 to my newly acquired forum hosting plan with IPB.


When I try to run the installer I get this message and nothing else:


Fatal error: Unable to read 56081 bytes in /home/******/public_html/sources/ipsclass.php on line 0



Any idea anyone? I tried re-uploading ipsclass.php a few times and it didn't change anything.



I would recommend submitting a ticket for the issue.
Been Told Newbie

Been Told

Posted
Posted

Did just as you said and guess what, by the time I got home, they had already installed the whole forum me. :D That is what I call good service :D

Special Thanks to Debbie :)

mirc Newbie

mirc

Posted
Posted

why do i get so many NOTICEs when i set define( 'CUSTOM_ERROR', 0 ); and error_reporting (E_ALL);
could you do something with it

mirc Newbie

mirc

Posted
Posted

to see what happens?


{


$this->class = &$class;


}


$this->modules->register_class([color="#FF0000"]&[/color]$this);

why & is there i get

Warning: Call-time pass-by-reference has been deprecated - argument passed by value; If you would like to pass it by reference, modify the declaration ...

sometimes
john01 Newbie

john01

Posted
Posted

You really are a smartarse Quark, you are also rude and condescending. You had no right to call him a names in the first place.



People come on here because they have problems, genuine problems, this upgrade has not worked the same on every forum. You may well be happy with 2.1.3, others aren't, as they're entitled to be.



Posting PMs is pretty off too, only someone like you would do something like that.



Before you go into another of your puerile rants, l'm 58, 60 in two years, so l guess by your criteria l'm much smarter than you, so have some respect for your elders.



:)



I oh so second that! There is nothing MORE rude than have someone say "Shut up, I'm alright Jack..." If YOU are alright, YOU shut up, and let those of us with ongoing issues have our say... at least it makes us feel better even if we know that nothing is gonna get it sorted this side of Christmas! BUT I have 'reported' stuff for which I have had sarcy comments which in fact turn out to be REAL problems, not imaginary or fictitious...

Btw, just wanna round that off by saying that I have the utmost respect for all the guys at Invision who are really trying hard to do a great job for us. Of that I have no doubt. Those of us who are busy forum admin, and I have 3 forums, know how much hard work goes unacknowledged. But when we say we have a problem, guys like Quark are so bloody annoying when the most constructive thing to be said is 'works fine for me'.... like we are morons. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

:thumbsup:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Invision Community © 2024 IPS, Inc.
×
×
  • Create New...