Kyanar

+Clients
  • Content count

    5,079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kyanar

  • Rank
    Let's say my yearly license expired in...
  • Birthday 09/15/1985

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Auckland, NZ
  • Interests
    I'm a software developer. You do the math.
  1. They've said on numerous occasions that this is never going to happen. It just encourages witch-hunts by overzealous fans and gives people a bad impression of the company. If you suspect that a site is nulled, then just report it and move on - it's not your job or responsibility to be IPS' copyright police - they have people for that.
  2. No forum has this feature. They can subscribe people to all new topics, but not once have I ever seen a forum that allows you to force subscribe individuals to every single reply. Mostly because that's a fast track to a Spamhaus listing. This is the sort of thing best left to hooks, not the base product.
  3. Uh, no, most forums do not have such a feature. Certainly not one which the user cannot override - what you are describing is called "spam", and is technically illegal.
  4. The customer is contracting him to upgrade his 2.3 skin to the latest version - I'd say that's an intention to upgrade to 3.x in the very near future :)
  5. Sounds like a config problem. Mine doesn't do it ;) .svn
  6. Just don't be surprised if the price goes up. Astronomically. To do video chat, you'd need server infrastructure running Flash Media Server or similar (at hideous expense) and the bandwidth use would be MASSIVE.
  7. That would be quite an achievement. 3.5 hasn't even been released yet, if it ever will be.
  8. For what it's worth, it is a bit weird that it looks like the URLs there are urlencoded twice...
  9. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure you will not see threaded conversations return - they actually used to be a feature of IP.Board until they were removed because no-one used the feature.
  10. I really don't see the problem with providing access. It's very easy to create an FTP and ACP user with no direct access to harmful tools or directories - on my own server, the (usually disabled) IPS Support account can only access and modify files in the IP.Board root directory (I'm too lazy to work out how to root the FTP access to a specific directory in IIS FTP) and only from a very limited pool of IPs to ensure that even if the details are disclosed, they are useless to any other user. In the ACP, the account is also usually disabled as well to ensure that the ACP details are useless if compromised too. You're essentially asking them to fix your issue with both hands tied behind their back. The fact that they try and help you at all under those circumstances is nothing short of miraculous - with most of the enterprise vendors I have to work with, if the answer to "let's do a WebEx and we'll look at your system" is "no", then they simply outright refuse support. Just to point out as well, according to the standards of service (Terms of Sale) IPS has the right to refuse support if you won't provide access as well.
  11. Well, for a start, companies like Google and Mozilla do not actually pay for bugs - they pay a bounty on critical security flaws - and we have no evidence to suggest that IPS does or does not pay a bounty on those privately. It's entirely possible that they do, but don't make a big deal about it. But pay for bugs? Won't happen. Ever. No company pays for bugs.
  12. Also, you're strongly recommended to purchase copyright removal - otherwise every page will have a link to a direct competitor!
  13. That's OK, I just don't get any mail from here at all. Postini flags it all as spam and dumps it in the quarantine.
  14. No it isn't. For example, the "Creating a Payment Gateway" document refers to $this->transaction as a number, when it's actually an array. I really wish IPS would stop changing the blasted payment gateway prototype without documenting it. I've lost so many freaking sales due to it.
  15. That would be wrong. 410 is essentially the same as 404 - it means "this content no longer exists". However, the content actually does exist. The only exception is that the RFC actually permits sending 404 instead of 403 if the application does not want to make the reason for the refusal to serve the content known to the client. So although 410 is not correct, 404 would still comply with the RFC. However, I understand Google reacts rather poorly to large amounts of 404 errors when crawling a site.