Markdown

progandy · 2023-02-03 15:51:56

Raynman wrote:

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

I wrote a quick and dirty userscript for that, but I hardly ever use the button:
https://gist.github.com/progandy/b0de55 … 83107dacac (install by pressing the "raw" button when Greasemonkey or an alternative is installed)

Last edited by progandy (2023-02-03 15:53:42)

twelveeighty · 2023-02-03 15:59:32

V1del wrote:

Argh I need to be more active in the other Arch channels

To set the record straight: I meant to include the Forum Moderators when I said 'Admins'; "admin" as in: moving posts, banning users, etc. I should have been more clear.

hully · 2023-02-11 09:46:52

Wow, I didn't mean to spur a flame.

It looks like we have worst problems: the software that runs the forum not being maintained at all.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2023-02-11 10:52:52

That's not really a problem: it just means that the upstream maintainers can't ruin things with an "upgrade". *cough*MediaWiki*cough*

Trilby · 2023-02-11 13:15:08

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

That's not really a problem: it just means that the upstream maintainers can't ruin things with an "upgrade". *cough*MediaWiki*cough*

This times 1000.

The fact that software hasn't been updated in a long time doesn't mean it's magically broken. In fact fluxBB is quite impressive that it continues to work just as intended without any changes needed for ages. When a project is complete, it is complete. That's it. If there are unaddressed bugs (not feature requests) that's a different story, but fluxBB not providing markdown is not a bug - it was never intended to.

This last point is what leads to my uncertainty about the discussions for a replacement as I think there is an unspoken division of motivations which I think would be cleared up by reframing the question to whether we'd seek to replace fluxBB if it were still "actively maintained" but was just not catering to modern trends and feature requests to become something it was never intended to be. Some participants in the discussion of replacements would answer Yes to this and others No.

Some people want to replace fluxBB because they want something different with new "modern" bells and whistles. Others are considering replacing fluxBB simply because it is not "actively maintained". But for that latter group I'd pose the question - are there actual unaddressed bugs, or is the lack of active maintenance just being used as a pry bar to get something with new bells and whistles? I've even seen some consenting to a change but wishing to get something as close as possible to fluxBB... you know what's closest to fluxBB: fluxBB!

(note: I'm not saying there aren't unaddressed bugs. If there are, that's a good reason to switch, but that should be the reason, not just that the code hasn't changed in a while. I just wish "it's not actively maintained" could just be completely removed from all discussions of whether or not to replace fluxBB as that - in and of itself - is irrelevant.)

Last edited by Trilby (2023-02-11 13:20:10)

Allan · 2023-02-11 13:40:36

https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2020-28873/

There is a couple of more minor CVE too

Head_on_a_Stick · 2023-02-11 17:50:46

^ Not sure if linking to that particular CVE is helpful. I want to change my password to something really long now

And anyway that could be patched locally. A lack of upstream maintenance doesn't stop it from being fixed.

Arch Linux

#26 2023-02-03 15:51:56

Re: Markdown

#27 2023-02-03 15:59:32

Re: Markdown

#28 2023-02-11 09:46:52

Re: Markdown

#29 2023-02-11 10:52:52

Re: Markdown

#30 2023-02-11 13:15:08

Re: Markdown

#31 2023-02-11 13:40:36

Re: Markdown

#32 2023-02-11 17:50:46

Re: Markdown

Board footer