Markdown

hully · 2023-02-02 13:43:22

Can we have markdown instead of those BBCode?

I think no body uses BBCode anymore and everybody, or almost, have switched to markdown?

Trilby · 2023-02-02 13:50:30

FluxBB does not support markdown. There's no two ways about that. Some other forum software does, but that would require transitioning the entire forums to that new software. This is something that has been discussed and - as far as I can tell - has been stalled in a planning stage for ages.

nl6720 · 2023-02-02 14:00:35

The stall is because the forum staff haven't made a decision on which replacement is acceptable.

seth · 2023-02-02 14:47:14

I'd point out that markdown is subjected to clipboard manipulations while FuxBB is not, ie. copy and pasting stuff from code boxes in this forum should™ so far be safe (famous last words I'm sure I won't have to eat about next week or so)

I'd pay attention that whatever forum software becomes a replacement, direct html input can be prohibited.

Also, on topic, wtf cares what everyone else does. If popularity was a metric for quality, out primary source for all information should be TikTok…

ewaller · 2023-02-02 14:47:55

nl6720 wrote:

The stall is because the forum staff haven't made a decision on which replacement is acceptable.

Interesting.

twelveeighty · 2023-02-02 15:23:55

This may be a case where a 'direct democracy' isn't going to work and we'll never get a consensus on which replacement to implement. Maybe put an 'arbitrary' group of people together from the forum side: admins, active power users with posts around 20k or so, etc, the dev team that need to tweak/package it and the sysadmin that need to keep it running and they agree to come to a decision and then move on.

Discourse looks like it hits the spot, but personally I detest 'likes' and 'endless scroll', which may or may not be configurable, but at the end of the day I'll learn to live with it.

nl6720 · 2023-02-02 15:28:16

Let's not get ridiculous, it will not be the forum users who will have any say in what gets chosen.
It will be a compromise between what the forum staff is willing to use and what DevOps are willing to host.

twelveeighty · 2023-02-02 15:53:36

What's ridiculous is that no decision has been made on this since October 2019. Adding a voice from the power users may actually spur some action.

V1del · 2023-02-02 16:12:53

Argh I need to be more active in the other Arch channels FWIW I also agree with the notion of having a more traditional structure i.e. no voting/no in-thread thread creation and can probably get accustomed to whatever, that meets these criteria. Will maybe create an account on archlinux.de to see how flarum works or so.

Last edited by V1del (2023-02-02 16:14:27)

seth · 2023-02-02 16:20:32

1280 wrote:

Adding a voice from the power users may actually spur some action.

gitlab issue #257 wrote:

* Functionally, FluxBB does everything I expect a forum software to do.

This is pretty much a backend discussion, so the opinion of those powerusers (by https://bbs.archlinux.org/userlist.php? … rch=Submit and your criteria that's Jason, Trilby and myself - karol's last post was 2017 and the other ones are staff) is rather irrelvant.

We can run a quick survey, though: I agree w/ Kristian in not turning this into a like & trophy ridden social scrollmonster.
I do see why the markdown syntax is more convenient (though see forementioned caveat about allowing users to post html) and inline code blocks would sure be nice and I'm sure less powerful users would appreciate a "solved" button, but that's it.
Trilby might ask for more cookies bananas?

I'll also guarantee that *any* change whatsoever will cause some uproar from somebody. That's law.
And then either the forum gets tweaked or the somebody adapts or leaves. That's nature.

So if we assume that nobody wants this to be reddit, nobody wants this to embarrass itself w/ 2FA and actually FluxBB is generally mostly fine on the frontend, the focus needs to be on the backend demands. Transition, maintainance and upstream future/support.

nl6720 · 2023-02-02 16:31:15

seth wrote:

nobody wants this to embarrass itself w/ 2FA

I'm curious what do you mean by this. 2FA should be handled by the SSO (accounts.archlinux.org). The forum software doesn't need to provide 2FA itself.

Last edited by nl6720 (2023-02-02 16:31:30)

Trilby · 2023-02-02 16:38:55

nl6720 wrote:

2FA should be handled by the SSO

You just said "should" ... in a reply to seth? Have you not seen any of his forum activity?

nl6720 · 2023-02-02 16:46:29

I'm not part on the process, so I refrained from using stronger wording.

https://accounts.archlinux.org/ supports 2FA already. TOTP and WebAuthn are usable right now.

seth · 2023-02-02 16:48:06

gitlab issue #257 wrote:

I would also strongly oppose any sort of obligatory 2-factor authentication.
2FA is available but not enforced (by default).
…
Support for OAuth is a requirement, as we long-term want to use Keycloak for all authentication.

I was just paraphrasing some consensus from the issue to stress that there seems a general agreement what the replacement should look and act like.
And I used the opportunity to shit on 2FA

Edit:
It's because I hurl the shouldland video at people who make an effort to explain how things should behave, especially when they obviously don't.
So much that I cover myself applying a ™ to should™, but this case of should does obviously not really meet the shouldland problem

Last edited by seth (2023-02-02 16:52:35)

Trilby · 2023-02-02 16:56:39

I think it exemplifies the shouldland problem - so perhaps I should have posted the link. A lack of 2FA as a requirement from the forum software is a criteria that has been advanced as being favorable. Saying 2FA *should* be handled by the SSO (and thus implying that it *should* not be by the forum software) is quite right - but that does not lift the criteria. If a bit of forum software requires 2FA that'd be a problem for many of us and saying "well the forum software *shouldn't* do that" doesn't ameliorate that concern if it in fact does require 2FA.

seth · 2023-02-02 17:14:37

If a bit of forum software requires 2FA that'd be a problem for many of us and saying "well the forum software *shouldn't* do that" doesn't ameliorate that concern if it in fact does require 2FA.

That'd be a clear shouldland case, but afaiu The Evil Wiki Admin was just couching his assessment to point out that the forum software is orthogonal to the account management/authentication.
Not that this is how things should™ be. Ie. "I think 2FA is completely handled by the SSO. The forum software doesn't need to provide 2FA itself."

Though in retrospect "doesn't need to provide 2FA itself" sounds like he misunderstood the embarrassment aspect of 2FA being a pita, providing a false sense of security
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 2#p2074552

Head_on_a_Stick · 2023-02-02 18:23:11

Please not Discourse. It's so trendy it makes me want to punch the screen.

jasonwryan · 2023-02-02 18:48:27

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Please not Discourse. It's so trendy it makes me want to punch the screen.

This.

Lone_Wolf · 2023-02-03 11:37:04

markdown* has one very annoying "feature" :
You can't start text on a new line unless you add a blank line

The above text would look like this in an aur comment :

markdown* has one very annoying "feature"  : You can't start text on a new line unless you add a blank line

or like

markdown* has one very annoying "feature"  :

You can't start text on a new line unless you add a blank line

* atleast the markdown supported in aur comments works that way

Maniaxx · 2023-02-03 12:38:29

Try two spaces before linebreak. That's how it works on Gitlab.

Raynman · 2023-02-03 13:31:06

Yes, exceptions should™ be possible, but starting just about every sentence on a new line can also be pretty annoying.

For TS: maybe consider something like Xyne's markdown2bbcode: https://xyne.dev/scripts/web/

schard · 2023-02-03 13:48:45

Raynman wrote:

Yes, exceptions should™ be possible, but starting just about every sentence on a new line can also be pretty annoying.
For TS: maybe consider something like Xyne's markdown2bbcode: https://xyne.dev/scripts/web/

The link on that webiste to the proposed source for markdown2bbcode redirects to a seemingly empty page with a load of tracking JS code. Fishy.

seth · 2023-02-03 13:57:30

</style>    <meta name="description" content="Diese Domain steht zum Verkauf!" />

Xyne probably abandonend the domain and it's now for sale.
But yeah - don't go there.

d.ALT · 2023-02-03 14:03:03

schard wrote:

Raynman wrote:
Yes, exceptions should™ be possible, but starting just about every sentence on a new line can also be pretty annoying.
For TS: maybe consider something like Xyne's markdown2bbcode: https://xyne.dev/scripts/web/
The link on that webiste to the proposed source for markdown2bbcode redirects to a seemingly empty page with a load of tracking JS code. Fishy.

?

seth wrote:

</style>    <meta name="description" content="Diese Domain steht zum Verkauf!" />
Xyne probably abandonend the domain and it's now for sale.
But yeah - don't go there.

?

Isn't this legit?:

seth · 2023-02-03 14:10:13

The dead link is http: // xyne . archlinux . ca/scripts/web/markdown2bbcode.hs (stray blanks added by me)
xyne.archlinux.ca is gone.

Arch Linux

#1 2023-02-02 13:43:22

Markdown

#2 2023-02-02 13:50:30

Re: Markdown

#3 2023-02-02 14:00:35

Re: Markdown

#4 2023-02-02 14:47:14

Re: Markdown

#5 2023-02-02 14:47:55

Re: Markdown

#6 2023-02-02 15:23:55

Re: Markdown

#7 2023-02-02 15:28:16

Re: Markdown

#8 2023-02-02 15:53:36

Re: Markdown

#9 2023-02-02 16:12:53

Re: Markdown

#10 2023-02-02 16:20:32

Re: Markdown

#11 2023-02-02 16:31:15

Re: Markdown

#12 2023-02-02 16:38:55

Re: Markdown

#13 2023-02-02 16:46:29

Re: Markdown

#14 2023-02-02 16:48:06

Re: Markdown

#15 2023-02-02 16:56:39

Re: Markdown

#16 2023-02-02 17:14:37

Re: Markdown

#17 2023-02-02 18:23:11

Re: Markdown

#18 2023-02-02 18:48:27

Re: Markdown

#19 2023-02-03 11:37:04

Re: Markdown

#20 2023-02-03 12:38:29

Re: Markdown

#21 2023-02-03 13:31:06

Re: Markdown

#22 2023-02-03 13:48:45

Re: Markdown

#23 2023-02-03 13:57:30

Re: Markdown

#24 2023-02-03 14:03:03

Re: Markdown

#25 2023-02-03 14:10:13

Re: Markdown

Board footer