bgrd Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Griego Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 Not that I like MsnTV or anything or how it mutilates sites, but MsnTV 2 is based on IE6 technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 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). :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam A Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Display Name Posted November 13, 2005 Share Posted November 13, 2005 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. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrisecc Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 From Security Threat Watch 106 just received:Invision Power Board 2.1: XSS http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2005-11/0087.html Which versions are involved, if any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.John. Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 From Security Threat Watch 106 just received: [size=2]Invision Power Board 2.1: XSS [/size]http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2005-11/0087.html Which versions are involved, if any? Those are old, and/or non-applicable How come my post was removed, Rikki? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccie9277 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccie9277 Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FancyDining Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myr Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szuf Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Been Told Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THR Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Submit a ticket and allow them to install it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Been Told Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 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 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirc Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Why did you set those exactly? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirc Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Griego Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 to see what happens? Well now you know what happens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirc Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Well now you know what happens... Vbuletin has noting of that kind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john01 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Kinder Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Vbuletin has noting of that kind I'm sure if you went and modified just about any software's source code, 'strange' things like that would show up :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.