Why IP.Board?

I'm not going to say "omg ip.board sucks get better forum software!!!!" because it's actually really nice and has a lot of nice features that other boards don't have, plus it just looks nice in general, even though it has quite a few odd quirks about it, as does every other forum software.

I'm just curious as to why IP.Board specifically was chosen, and perhaps a discussion could be brought as to whether or not you believe better forum software could/should be used.

It's not really a "call to action" or a demand to change, just something that was on my mind watching direwolf's vids.

I prefer to roll my own now, and I used to favor SMF as a free solution, but once IP Board was free to the public, and it was actually pretty nice. I haven't used it since- but I vaguely remember it had some nice features other boards required modification for back then. Nowadays I can roll a simple forum that has exactly whats needed in Perl in a day or two (not including graphics design or anything), so why bother :D/>

I have no problem with the current forum software. Works fine, I see no need to change it :P/>

The one that http://bukkit.org looks nice, but I can't remember the name. I like it because it combines everything: news feed, forums, etc. Not sure how powerful it is though.

SuicidalSTDz, on 16 March 2013 - 02:13 PM said:

I have no problem with the current forum software. Works fine, I see no need to change it :P/>/>

Well, the code highlighting is a bit annoying, plus how the WYSIWYG editor can screw up some tabbing, but I agree. It's not worth overhauling a system that works fine.

Kingdaro, on 16 March 2013 - 04:56 PM said:

SuicidalSTDz, on 16 March 2013 - 02:13 PM said:

I have no problem with the current forum software. Works fine, I see no need to change it :P/>/>/>

Well, the code highlighting is a bit annoying, plus how the WYSIWYG editor can screw up some tabbing, but I agree. It's not worth overhauling a system that works fine.

The highlighting is tolerable, just the tabbing is annoying, yet, still tolerable. ^_^/>

Dlcruz129, on 16 March 2013 - 02:40 PM said:

The one that http://bukkit.org looks nice, but I can't remember the name. I like it because it combines everything: news feed, forums, etc. Not sure how powerful it is though.

I'm pretty sure Bukkit uses XenForo

oeed, on 16 March 2013 - 05:19 PM said:

Dlcruz129, on 16 March 2013 - 02:40 PM said:

The one that http://bukkit.org looks nice, but I can't remember the name. I like it because it combines everything: news feed, forums, etc. Not sure how powerful it is though.

I'm pretty sure Bukkit uses XenForo

That's it. I couldn't remember the name. :P/> But I believe it costs money.

IP.Board does too.

Yea, I've been looking around at forum software and I was surprised how little free (and decent) forum software exists.

I actually like ip.board the most because its simple and easy to use IMO.

lieudusty, on 17 March 2013 - 02:24 AM said:

I actually like ip.board the most because its simple and easy to use IMO.

I for one, second this factual opinion ^_^/>

I think that the boord is nice, its just that dammed WYSIWYG editor. Yes I know that you can switch it to plain text bbcode mode (I already have.)
I just recently had a problem with it where when i had bolded text in a list, and then pressed unbold, it would move my cursor to the top left of the text.
I also had another problem where trying to paste something would paste it at the top left.

to those defending IPB: it was bad choice if only because of the restrictions forced upon those who buy it. the staff aren't allowed to make modifications. if something is broken, customers (i.e. the owners of this forum) aren't allowed to fix it.

personally, i prefer FluxBB. it's lightweight and encourages customization. basically, you build it into whatever you want it to be.

edit: i've been hearing that modifications aren't allowed, but i can't find a copy of the actual license. can anyone post a link?

eleure, on 18 March 2013 - 06:32 AM said:

to those defending IPB: it was bad choice if only because of the restrictions forced upon those who buy it. the staff aren't allowed to make modifications. if something is broken, customers (i.e. the owners of this forum) aren't allowed to fix it.

personally, i prefer FluxBB. it's lightweight and encourages customization. basically, you build it into whatever you want it to be.

edit: i've been hearing that modifications aren't allowed, but i can't find a copy of the actual license. can anyone post a link?

I like FluxBB too. It's really nice.

eleure, on 18 March 2013 - 06:32 AM said:

edit: i've been hearing that modifications aren't allowed, but i can't find a copy of the actual license. can anyone post a link?

I believe this is the license.

The relevant part of the license is here:

Spoiler

You may:

• customize the Software's design and operation to suit the internal needs of your web site except to the extent not permitted in this Agreement
• produce and distribute modification instructions, Skin packs, or Language packs provided that they contain notification that the Skin and Language packs were exported from and originally created by Invision Power Board and/or IPS. The modifications instructions you personally create are not owned by IPS so long as they contain no proprietary coding from Invision Power Board
• create applications which interface with the operation of the Software provided said application is an original work

You may not:

• permit other individuals to use the Software except under the terms listed above
• reverse engineer, disassemble, or create derivative works based on the Software for distribution or usage outside your web site
• use the Software in such as way as to condone or encourage terrorism, promote or provide pirated Software, or any other form of illegal or damaging activity
• modify and/or remove any copyright notices or labels on the Software on each page (unless copyright output removal license is purchased) and in the header of each script source file
• distribute the Software
• distribute individual copies of files, libraries, or other programming material in the Software package
• distribute or modify proprietary graphics, HTML, or CSS packaged with the Software for use in Software applications other than Invision Power Board or web sites without written permission from IPS
• modify the software to function in more than instance or location (URL, domain, subdomain, etc.) from a single set of source program files unless each location is separately licensed

I think the issue comes from this line:

[you may not] distribute or modify proprietary graphics, HTML, or CSS packaged with the Software for use in Software applications other than Invision Power Board or web sites without written permission from IPS

At the same time though, it has this:

[you may] customize the Software's design and operation to suit the internal needs of your web site except to the extent not permitted in this Agreement

Which leads me to believe that you could change the functionality of the WYSIWYG editor. But of course, I'm no lawyer.

I think the only thing I hate about IP.Board is the mobile layout. Other than that, it is all good for me (Well and the WYSIWYG editor)

Bubba, on 18 March 2013 - 06:48 AM said:

eleure, on 18 March 2013 - 06:32 AM said:

edit: i've been hearing that modifications aren't allowed, but i can't find a copy of the actual license. can anyone post a link?

I believe this is the license.

thanks. i see nothing here stating that customers aren't allowed to customize the software.
in fact,

You may:
- customize the Software's design and operation to suit the internal needs of your web site except to the extent not permitted in this Agreement

where 'the extent not permitted by this agreement' does not include modifying the JavaScript used for the post editor (it refers only to graphics, HTML and CSS) or, according to, i think, TheOriginalBit, the code highlighting portion. apparently it's open-source, and can be changed freely.

SuicidalSTDz, on 18 March 2013 - 06:54 AM said:

I think the only thing I hate about IP.Board is the mobile layout. Other than that, it is all good for me (Well and the WYSIWYG editor)

are you insisting that the problems are manageable out of a desire to provide the developers with positive attention?

edit: dreadful wording.