810 wrote: ... found the issue [and] will release today a new version

What was "the issue" and, more importantly, could you please provide us with the GitHub reference so that we can track (a) what was wrong and (b) how you fixed the problem.

Thanks

810 wrote: There are reports from this issue ...

Do you have links to these reports, please? If there are reports of problems with the installation of K 4.0.8, I think the community would like to follow this issue.

810 wrote: [It seems likely] caused by an old/outdated php versions.

Which "old/outdated" PHP versions seem to be likely causes of the problem?

Thank you.

810 wrote: this is a know issue, we are trying to fix this issue.

If this is a known issue, can you please quote the GitHub reference? We would like to know how and when this problem is fixed. Thank you.

colingchong wrote: I'm having a problem installing the 4.0.7 update. Install from directory on server failed ...

It appears that your problem is not uncommon.

My suggestion is to read the [revised] upgrade guide for K 4.0 where is says:

"Download the [Kunena installation] package (to your PC—the installation package is located on the download page ) and install it by [using] the Joomla Extension Manager."

What the documentation doesn't tell you is that the update method that seems to work the best is to use the Upload Package File method. The other three methods, Install from Folder (i.e. the method you tried), Install from URL and the "automatic update" method), are not always reliable.

colingchong wrote: Warning
JInstaller: :Install: Can't find XML setup file.

Error
Path does not have a valid package.

This is a known problem for people who try the "automatic update" method. I suggest you try the Upload Package File method.

katenz wrote: Today, as a logged-in user, I can see all posts up to date. However, if I log out, I can only see posts up to 11.30pm yesterday. There was a post at 5.45am so I'm guessing something happened between those times.

First of all, I do not think you are going mad. Yes, there was a message posted in the meantime (between 23:30 on one day and 05:45 on the next day) and your task is to find it.

I don't think the task will necessarily be resolved by refreshing your browser page or clearing the server cache—although I do suspect that browser caching was responsible for the unexplained problem that you reported previously .

My guess as to why you're not seeing all the topic updates when you're not logged-in is because you have a forum category that is displayed only when you're logged-in (and the "missing" post was sent to that topic). Does that seem like a reasonable deduction to you?

BEtheredge wrote: With that being said, would a user with moderator rights still be able to edit a post/comment if the User Edits field was set to NO? I did not see anything specific for this on the www.kunena.org/docs/Forum_moderators page. I assume moderators are just like a Super User...

Yes. The configuration setting only applies to the author—the "normal user"—of the messages. Forum moderators can edit any messages posted on the forum.

ruud wrote: What do you think?

This topic is posted in the category Kunena 4.0 Feature Requests . In my opinion there should be no "new features" added to K 4.0 at this time,

There should be a lesson here for the developers about the experience of (a) requesting new features and (b) adding new features.

In the "old days" there was a forum category here where people could suggest new ideas for new features. For some unexplained reason, the developers added a new category for people to request new features in K 4.0. I do not understand the reason why the developers created a new forum category for these things when a forum category already existed. However, that's the fact of the matter and it's something that has already caused a lot of confusion.

The second point I want to make about "reguesting" new features to be added to K 4.0 is that it created a number of false expectations within the community. The category Kunena 4.0 Feature Requests was created after the initial beta release of K 4.0. Now, perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the term " beta version " but it has been my belief that, when a software project reaches the beta phase,

... the software is feature complete but likely to contain a number of known or unknown bugs.

We should also remember that the alpha phase—the initial design and construction) of the K 4.0 feature set—took nearly two years to complete. According to the developers' own plan, K 4.0 is already at end-of-life pending the release of K 5.0. The question therefore remains, why request new features for K 4.0 at this stage?

So, for these reasons, I would argue that this forum category called Kunena 4.0 Feature Requests has already served its purpose and the category should be locked. If the developers think there's some benefit in asking the community for suggestions for K 5.0 then, perhaps, it would be an idea to create a new forum category for that?

Secondly, we have already witnessed the dangers of adding adding new features. With each minor dot-point release of K 4.0—with the exception of K 4.0.7—new features were added and new defects were introduced. Parts of Kunena that used to work in older version were broken in new releases. Some of the new features did not work, either, or they introduced new problems. Although the ideas for new features are good, the consequences of adding new features is disastrous. Adding new features has caused a loss in confidence within the community about the stability of the product.

I believe the developers should focus their activities on (a) rectifying known problems and, if necessary, removing those "new features" that were added after K 4.0 beta was released if those additions created additional problems, and (b) developing K 5.0 and the appropriate support mechanisms (i.e. documentation, website) that users require.

In conclusion:

a) the time for requesting new features for K 4.0 is over and I suggest that this category should be locked and archived for posterity.

b) instead of strengthing the community's involvement, adding new features in K 4.0 results in the community's loss of confidence in the product.

And, in answer to your question, that's what I think.

You asked questions about using IP addresses to help you manage your forum. We have responded to those questions.

If you want to discuss "How do I prevent people creating multiple accounts?", "How do I prevent people attacking others they don't like?" or "How do I deal with problem users?" then please create new topics for those discussions.

Can this issue be reproduced here, on this forum?

breebee2 wrote: When quoting something with a bbcode link it seems to grab the hyperlink instead and posts with the html rather then the original bbcode. Just a heads up

See my previous message posted here. I was unable to reproduce this bug that you have reported.

Do you have an example of this problem somewhere?

This is a test (to try to reproduce the fault here on this forum):

sozzled wrote: The features in Kunena are not foolproof but they're reasonably adequate to dealing with common nuisances , for example, people who join a website under adifferent pseudonyms from the same IP address.

DarkFulgoreII wrote: The problem is tapatalk plugin. Using tapatalk users can see the usernames . Does anyone knows a way to hide the usernames?

Have you talked to the developers of Tapatalk and what was their advice?

The Kunena developers are not associated with the developers of Tapatalk.

Nikiniko wrote: I searched and the only thing i found is that is joomla session problem ...

I am not sure what you searched for and what, specifically, is the joomla session problem that you referred to, but I suspect that the cause of this issue lies in the way that sessions are handled.

I believe the following Joomla settings are involved

Global Configuration » Server » Cache Settings » Cache
Global Configuration » Server » Session Settings » Session Lifetime
Forum Configuration » General » Basic Settings » Session Lifetime

One suggestion is to turn off server caching and make Global Configuration session lifetime (in minutes) the same as Kunena session lifetime (in seconds). If Kunena session lifetime is 1800 seconds, make Global sessions lifetime = 30 minutes.

810 suggested changing

Forum Configuration » Frontend » Look and Feel » Online Users Contains = Valid sessions

I do not know how this setting works. I have never changed it from the default setting ("All users"). The default setting for the "next option" that 810 referred to (Forum Configuration » Frontend » Look and Feel » Online Users Time Limit) is zero. I do not know how you can have a "lower setting" than zero. Perhaps 810 can explain what these two settings do?

I am not sure how the Kunena cache settings affect this issue.

Nikiniko wrote: Is there any other more accurate method to use?

It is almost impossible to rely on IP addresses as sole determinant in website security. Putting this another way, because it's possible for people to utilise fast flux DNS hosting or spoof their IP addresses in other ways, websites can be targeted without people being able to determine the source of the attack.

The features in Kunena are not foolproof but they're reasonably adequate to dealing with common nuisances , for example, people who join a website under adifferent pseudonyms from the same IP address.

You have asked about IP address tracking and I shall confine my responses to that issue. You have asked if there are more accurate methods to use and I responded to that question. There are, however, other ways to deal with problem users.

810 wrote: We want to change it ...

I'm not sure what "it" is but I assume "it" is this: github.com/Kunena/Kunena-Forum/issues/2542

butchjax wrote: The latest, [J!] 3.4.5 I believe.

Good to know because if you had not been using the latest version of Joomla, I would have suggested you read Cannot login to back-end and front-end of website .