Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tree View
#11
Klaus, I understand all of this, and I'm fully aware of probably just stating the obvious. Nonetheless, I guess I just had to get it off my chest that the old forum engine wasn't bad at all. Kudos to you, or whoever designed the old forum ... that's kind of the bottom line :-)





[quote name='Klaus' date='09 June 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1276076412' post='376']

Yes, these are all drawbacks of the new engine. The old forum had a couple of fairly unique features which are still not available from off-the-shelf products despite all these years since the implementation (for whatever reason). I can't say that I'm a big fan of all this myself. I do fully understand those who will leave but new users may be more accustomed to this kind of forum. The sad truth is that I simply did not have the time anymore to add new features/enhancements to the old forum. So I'm afraid ...



Klaus



PS: The "today's active content" link may help at times.

[/quote]
#12
Yup, the old outline was really rather unique.



I get around it now by using "today's active content".

It would be nice if that button could show up in more places. However, as a work-around, you can open "today's active content" first, and when you click on a thread open it in another tab, so you can easily get back to Todays active content.



Perhaps the three separate sections (Equipment, photography, photozone) are not necessary, and (digital darkroom) could go under software to make the main list shorter?
#13
Klaus, you had one of the best forums of all sites, it is a pity it is not used anymore,maybe you could work on it while we are using this one, then you can consider selling the software which would justify the amount of work.

I am not the only one who says you had one of the best forum software, it lacked some features, yes, but the core program is ways ways better than anything on the net.

Please reconsider retaking the old forum software out of its grave
#14
[quote name='Alexander (former netrex)' date='09 June 2010 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1276114812' post='401']

Why are you destroying cookies?

[/quote]



Well, a general security rule is: "What you don't have (and store) cannot be stolen (that easy)".



A good website keeps membersettings in its own DB and sets up a cookie just for

the actual session ... eventually filled with data from its own DB. Yes, it means more work

for the website (since it cannot offload this stuf to the users side in that case) ... but it is

simply more secure.
#15
[quote name='Rainer' date='10 June 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1276185870' post='420']

Well, a general security rule is: "What you don't have (and store) cannot be stolen (that easy)".



A good website keeps membersettings in its own DB and sets up a cookie just for

the actual session ... eventually filled with data from its own DB. Yes, it means more work

for the website (since it cannot offload this stuf to the users side in that case) ... but it is

simply more secure.

[/quote]



Cookies impose no security risk per se.



They're only risky in an internet-cafe or stolen hardware scenario where your settings get "exposed" (and in the latter case cookies are the least problem). In an internet cafe you should use e.g. the "private mode" which is available in modern browsers. In this case cookies are deleted upon exiting the browser.



Even so the PZ cookies are harmless because here at PZ the worst thing that could happen would be spamming the forum with your account. This is different on sites with an auto-login where you can loose money or expose critical data - e.g. in web-shops or banks. A decent website with critical data will, of course, only allow temp-Cookies and not the persistent ones used for forums and such.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)