The point is to make a portable file, so you do not /have/ to compile it on the host. Statically linked lets you use libraries that the host does not have.

Sure, doing it in perl is an option though.

>>19

I can't reproduce this on Firefox 1.0.4 nor Safari on the Mac, but that ancient Firebird had a similar problem (but even worse).

Anyone else? Try post with a | in your name.

fusianasan + sage test

>>71
forgot to add that turning the CSS selector and Admin functions into drop-down menus and moving them to the right side of board and thread title headers would remove that top bar entirely on the front page.

>Most admins probably don't get point of the secret string anyway, and asking them to put in several is just too annoying. In retrospect, I'd like to add a second layer of hashing to these, but that'd mean breaking secure trips AGAIN.

You could take the route that MrVB (I think?) did and generate the strings on first run? openssl, /dev/random, perl's random as last resort. In almost every case you are going to get a better random string than most people will supply, and if they want to change it they can. Or only have them generated if they are not supplied.

Honestly, when people care so much about anonymity they can put up with the changes required to ensure it.

> The File field is almost never there.

...especially not when I've added a bug that makes it disappear. Where the hell did it go?

http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1114201493/l50

Or use some sort of filter to replace them characters with underscores on upload.
This offcourse for files that keep their original filename.

http://wakaba.c3.cx/sup/kareha.pl/1114201493/l50

Or use some sort of filter to replace them characters with underscores on upload.
This offcourse for files that keep their original filename.

>>69
The sage seems a bit off...

>>313 Like lots of people use them anyway </sarcasm>. Yes, security is a good idea. What are the holes, anyway?

Thanks. I did it the hard way and put in the proper transformations everywhere so filenames can be kept intact, though.

>>348

That's a Firefox bug.

>>151 It's all public domain, I believe.

On second thought, the whole search idea was pretty poor...but could you implement saging in a way that's independent of any particular post element, and is instead assigned in the individual templates?

Oh:

> Getting back to inconsequential nitpicking: I find the "___ image replies omitted" phrase to be a bit redundant, and for one it confuses me as to whether or not those image replies are separate from text-only replies. How about simply calling it "images"?

Yes, that's a great idea, which is why I've always done just that. You're thinking of 4chan.

> Frankly, the combinations of many things into unrelated fields is a design flaw.

I don't think so, not in these cases. What's the alternative? Having a different field for fusianasan, a new checkbox for sage, etc.? That's just cluttering up the interface.

> What if you want to use a name/trip and fusianasan?

Then just make one post with your name/trip and one with fusianasan and let your ID show up in both.
fusiansan is just intended for rare or special cases anyway, as is the whole subject of identification on anonymous message boards.

> What if your email address contains the string 'sage'?

Huh?

> What if you want to sage a thread, but have an ID still?

Then the board has to be configurated to just do that (it already can).

> why should I have to remember something so foreign?

It's rarely needed anyway. Also, these things are pretty easy to remember. "sage" and "fusianasan" is all there is, really.

Forgot this one:
The general functions of imageboards do not seem to be clear to most people that eventually come around, the influx of total newbies is still big. Many neither know what sage is, how to properly reply to threads, what tripcodes are, etc.
Because of that, I believe it would be good to include a default link at the bottom of the unordered list at the bottom of the new thread form that links to http://wakaba.c3.cx/docs/docs.html#UsersGuide

Relevant:
http://dis.iichan.net/idc/kareha.pl/1128824710/12-

　　　∧∧
　　（　 ･ω･） 　 　It's late
　 ＿|　⊃／(＿＿_
／　└-(＿＿＿_／

　　　∧∧
　　（ ･ω･ ） 　 　Good night!
　 ＿|　⊃／(＿＿_
／　└-(＿＿＿_／

　 ＜⌒／ヽ-、_＿_
／＜_/＿＿＿＿／
￣￣

>>98

Well, that's what I've said from the start, but people keep requesting them.

FUDGE_BLOCKQUOTES is used by the Futaba style, and I guess I just want to keep it there to make it compatible with Futallaby-style CSS files.

>>344 orz

I think you're a bit nutty, >>350...

> Reintroduction of "Marked for deletion (old)"

I actually don't like that, and think wakaba should no longer use the futaba style of dropping threads by default. Why not use the least-popular option instead? If a thread is in demand, let it live.

(Lots of stuff in here, click "whole post"!)

> How about listing what dmpk2k or you have done already?

Truth be told, I haven't even looked over his contributions yet. I'm doing some work on Kareha first. He did bandwidth load balancing for Wakaba across several servers, and image file archiving, at least. Plus some proxy checking and other goodies.

> Split threads and posts into separate tables. You're repeating the lasthit and parent column over and over.

Bad idea. Adds a lot of code complexity without adding any new functionality. The current solution is simple and robust.

> Automatic closing and moving of threads that do not get any activity in a certain timeframe (based on average activity frequency of the board)

This is nearly impossible to get right, and I don't think I'm going to try unless someone can think up a reliable algorithm that uses the data that is availble (not much).

> Reintroduction of "Marked for deletion (old)" (it's just handy to have that)

I tried several times, and concluded it wasn't worth the code and database overhead it would take. This feature is relatively easy to implement for Futaba-style post number limited boards (and Futaba implements it really stupidly), but it gets tricky when you have different deletion modes and want to do it right.

> Prune-limit mode that is defined by number of files or size sum of files on a board

Size limit is already implemented. I might add file limit, but I'm not sure it's all that useful, when you already have the size limit.

The rest, I agree with, and I will try to get most of it done. I'm sure there's some more stuff hidden in old threads, though!

>Most admins probably don't get point of the secret string anyway, and asking them to put in several is just too annoying. In retrospect, I'd like to add a second layer of hashing to these, but that'd mean breaking secure trips AGAIN.

You could take the route that MrVB (I think?) did and generate the strings on first run? openssl, /dev/random, perl's random as last resort. In almost every case you are going to get a better random string than most people will supply, and if they want to change it they can. Or only have them generated if they are not supplied.

Honestly, when people care so much about anonymity they can put up with the changes required to ensure it.

I have always found that it's more difficult than one would think to implement features that will measure "popularity" in a satisfying way that isn't open to abuse in one way or another.