Idea Update about upcoming changes

ruud wrote:

sozzled wrote: 2) The article makes the point that autosubscribe will only be "allowed for B2B". How will K 5.0 ensure that websites where autosubcribe is implemented are used only for B2B purposes to ensure its legality ?

How do eg car manufacturers ensure that their cars are not used as getaway cars in a bank robbery?

That is an unfair analogy.

A better comparison would be, "How does Microsoft ensure that a person using the Windows operating system have the legal right to obtain updates?"

I think (but I am not a legal expert) that a must is to notify.
I once was involved in a project to disclose ones workplace via the internet. Legal department told us to create a notice on the web page ("Unauthorised access, or usage of this computer system in breach of internal policies, is prohibited and may result in legal or disciplinary action being taken against you").
Without that notice is was 'legal' to try to hack your way into the system: nobody told you that you where doing illegal things....

I do not have the interest to debate this matter here. I have already put my case forward in other places and, if people don't care, that's their problem. At the end of the day it will only require one complaint put to the authorities and the Kunena developers may find themselves in more trouble than they bargained for.

Yes, it's one thing to put a warning on merchandise and say "stay out of here if you are not qualified to modify the product" and it's an entirely different matter if the merchandise does not have tamper-proof safeguards to prevent its possible misuse.

In my opinion, a "warning" is not a safeguard against potential misuse.

Returning to the "car" analogy, most vehicles used in crimes are stolen. It is a requirement, these days, for motor vehicle manufacturers to equip cars with engine immobilisers. However much we play games with analogies, the fact remains that from just about any way you look at this, freely placing the means to illegally invade peoples' privacy with web software makes the author of that software an accessory to the illegal misuse of that software.

By the way, although we're not discussing "hacking"', one doesn't have to have a notice placed somewhere to say that it's illegal to hack into a website. "Hacking" (in this sense) is illegal anyway and most countries have anti-hacking laws. So, no, it's not a case of "it's not illegal because no-one said otherwise." It's illegal because the law says it's illegal.

We are also going to deprecated Php 5.4

So you need to Update Php

min : 5.5..
Req : 5.6

See: php.net/supported-versions.php

810 wrote: We are also going to deprecated Php 5.4

So you need to Update Php

min : 5.5..
Req : 5.6

See: php.net/supported-versions.php

I think that's a step too far. Even Joomla's own technical requirements are only PHP 5.3.31 (although they recommend PHP 5.4, or higher).

Just because the PHP website says that PHP 5.4 is no longer officially supported (or that PHP 5.3 "died" on 14 August 2014 ) does not negate the need for continued support for those who may require additional time for their webhosting providers to catch up. :whistle: Have a look at the configuration reports provided by your users to see what version of PHP they are currently using and use that as a determining factor in deciding what minimum version of PHP should be used rather than what version is "supported" by PHP.net .

I would suggest that the primary factor, in choosing the minimum versions of server operating system software to operate one's website, is whatever is needed in order to run Joomla. For example, some years ago my webhosting provider at the time was not using the minimum operating system software (I can't remember if it was PHP mySQL or something else) required for whatever was going to be next major release of Joomla. Because Joomla was moving forward—and I wanted to maintain my involvement with Joomla—I changed webhosting providers in order to remain up-to-date. My forum needs were a secondary consideration. The changeover involved a few hundred dollars but it was worth it because Joomla has gone from strength to strength.

If K 5.0 will require PHP 5.5 then I hope you will still be providing support for K 4.0 for a long time. In my own case, I am running PHP 5.4.41. I would also suggest that if you abandon K 4.0 (within one month of releasing K 5.0, as you indicated in your article) you will lose the majority of people from this community. I, for one, will not be upgrading to K 5.0—I will not even be able to test it—if PHP 5.5/6 is required in order to run it.

See my earlier post in this topic above.

As a suggestion, instead of making the decision that K 5.0 will require PHP 5.5 now, how about running a community survey to gauge community support? You can make the case for PHP 5.5—and why you believe it's needed for Kunena to move forward—in a new topic and ask people to vote for the following proposition and allow peoople to respond accordingly:

What should be the minimum version of PHP for K 5.0?

1. PHP 5.3.31 (the minimum version required for J! 3.4)
2. PHP 5.4.31 (as recommended for K 3.0/K 4.0)
3. PHP 5.5 (currently supported by PHP.net)
4. PHP 5.6 (the latest version supported by PHP.net)

Alternatively, if people wish, they can use the Thank You feature here to show their agreement with what I have written (or how you may choose to respond) or they can reply to this topic.