- Posts: 36
- Thank you received: 0
The forums' buggy rich text editor
3 years 5 months ago #271841
by petmakris
The forums' buggy rich text editor was created by petmakris
Is there anything we can do for the forums' editor? Maybe some updating to latest version if there any?
It is very buggy when trting to edit an existing message.
It is very buggy when trting to edit an existing message.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 5 months ago #271852
by PCW
Replied by PCW on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
It's horrible, makes me want to punish whoever wrote it...
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 5 months ago #271868
by JPL
Replied by JPL on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 5 months ago #272144
by JT
Replied by JT on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
I've not found a way but if you do let me know.
JT
JT
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- smc.collins
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 721
- Thank you received: 0
3 years 5 months ago #272151
by smc.collins
Replied by smc.collins on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
I'd pitch in a few $$$ to get a better forum software system , there's a ton out there, disquos, vbulletin etc.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- tommylight
-
- Away
- Administrator
-
Less
More
- Posts: 22008
- Thank you received: 3
3 years 5 months ago #272163
by tommylight
Replied by tommylight on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
I would never pay for such things, especially since almost all are proprietary closed source stuff.
Open source with support i would pay gladly.
I do donate occasionally to some open source stuff/foundations/organisations.
Open source with support i would pay gladly.
I do donate occasionally to some open source stuff/foundations/organisations.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- smc.collins
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 721
- Thank you received: 0
3 years 5 months ago #272229
by smc.collins
Replied by smc.collins on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
i am always willing to spend $ if it means saving my time.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 5 months ago #272339
by JT
Replied by JT on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
Unfortunately migrating to new software would loose all the history... unless you know of an open source forum software that can import all the history?
JT
JT
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- smc.collins
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 721
- Thank you received: 0
3 years 4 months ago #272560
by smc.collins
Replied by smc.collins on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
why does it have to be open source ?? it's nice when it is, but that shouldn't be the overarching choice as to which software to use. that's ideological thinking, it should be, features, efficiency, function, cost.
i think a phpbb would probably be better though, than what is here, and i think they have numerous import export plugins, yes the look is more antiquated, but the functionality is vastly superior and massive open source support community.
i think a phpbb would probably be better though, than what is here, and i think they have numerous import export plugins, yes the look is more antiquated, but the functionality is vastly superior and massive open source support community.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
3 years 4 months ago #272562
by Aciera
Replied by Aciera on topic The forums' buggy rich text editor
Personally I prefer the threaded forum style we have (even with the buggy editor) to the flat message structure of phpbb. There are people who prefer the chat format but I certainly do not.
It should also be about not having your data exploited and sold and being able to verify what the software actually does in the background which is after all what linuxcnc is partly about. Seems kind of sad to throw all that out of the window just because the forum editor is buggy.it should be, features, efficiency, function, cost.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.294 seconds
