mySQL Injection GET
stripslashes doesn't cut it.
use mysql_real_escape_string instead.
Thanks a lot
fixed in SVN now. (NB, note that I havn't bothered securing the admin-panel, it going for a complete rewrite anyway).
> I quickly realized that the only good (open source) imageboard out there is written in Perl
This is a problem because it is... too fast? Too secure?
it's a problem because a lot of people don't know Perl very well, because it's not default on (more or less) every webhost out there, and it can be buggy to setup since you only get a error500 when something is wrong.
over all my point is. PHP may, in many ways, be a horrible language - but it has one very big advantage: "it's without doubt the most used language out there for webscripting".
Anyway - why i wrote this in PHP doesn't really matter since it's my decision, and it's not going to change :) Now I just try to get the best out of it.
Worst thing that could happen
PHP: mySQL injection'; DROP TABLE foo'
Perl: ../../etc/passwd%00
> it's a problem because a lot of people don't know Perl very well
You don't need to know the language to run the software! Where do people get this crazy idea?
> because it's not default on (more or less) every webhost out there
It... it is default on more or less every webhost out there.
> and it can be buggy to setup since you only get a error500 when something is wrong.
This is why you have error_log.
And >>6, if you think that's the worst thing that can happen in PHP, you really don't know it or its history very well.
Good job, this looks promising.
>You don't need to know the language to run the software! Where do people get this crazy idea?
its an opensource project, and it allows people to easily contribute to the development of the software.
>if you think that's the worst thing that can happen in PHP, you really don't know it or its history very well.
Sorry, I have to correct myself on that one, because they're not the really worst things that could happen, just the most common one that comes to mind:
PHP: compromised server(use your imagination)
Perl: compromised server(use your imagination)
yeah, they're more or less equal in severity. the only difference is that it happens more often in PHP since it has a larger userbase and lower entry barriers
>You don't need to know the language to run the software! Where do people get this crazy idea?
its an opensource project, and it allows people to easily contribute to the development of the software.
>if you think that's the worst thing that can happen in PHP, you really don't know it or its history very well.
Sorry, I have to correct myself on that one, because they're not the really worst things that could happen, just the most common one that comes to mind:
PHP: compromised server(use your imagination)
Perl: compromised server(use your imagination)
yeah, they're more or less equal in severity. the only difference is that it happens more often in PHP since it has a larger userbase and lower entry barriers
>> You don't need to know the language to run the software! Where do people get this crazy idea?
> its an opensource project, and it allows people to easily contribute to the development of the software.
Allows. Not requires. Do you have to know C++ and Javascript to use Firefox? Why am I even having to argue about this?
> yeah, they're more or less equal in severity. the only difference is that it happens more often in PHP since it has a larger userbase and lower entry barriers
And because the PHP core is a mess, security-wise, and the development team shuns proper security practices. See, for instance, http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/432.
Well, i think it is a great idea. You are making a step for people to add a BBS on their php websites (and who is not using php5 now? I mean, it's object oriented, damnit!)
I'll check it today, and I'll see if I can find some bugs, enhance some of its code or add some stuff ^^
Thank you <3.
Hmm, aren't there a million PHP-based imageboard scripts already? I think I've seen other posts on /code/ or /net/ about other things like this.
All I know is Thorn, that's about it.
there is also Travorchan, but it's horrid
Can you download Travorchan? I can't find a download link anywhere
typo, Trevorchan
there's also futallaby...
and then there's the futaba script and gazoubbs... and a whole bunch of other japanese ones...
> PHP5/MySQL5.
There's this thing called PEAR, you might have heard of it!
Also, please take this quiz.
OK, reading this code, it is somewhat on a better coding level than Trevorchan. But not really all that much. Use Futallaby. Give it image replies if you want.
Futaba's designer appreciates that PHP is a terrible language and doesn't bother adding worthless enterprise structure, follow him!
(Or just use Wakaba, which is not badly written in any security-related or spelling-tripcode-wrong way.)
I set up an imageboard using wakaba. It doesn't require any knowledge of perl to use. The only .pl file you need to edit at all is the config.pl file, and that's just changing what variables equal, which is pretty simple. The errors I had setting it up were all from mysql or file permissions, the script itself doesn't cause any 500 errors.
list of imageboards:
list of text boards:
>>26 don't forget Kareha is an image board too.
That's not really Kareha's strength though. It doesn't scale that well as users increase, so you're better off using something like Wakaba for images.
>>28
most image boards probably won't get enough users that they'd even notice that, tho...
and i think that kareha in message board mode with image posting enabled looks a lot nicer than wakaba or kareha in image board mode.
True - it only matters if a board can handle 10.000 daily visitors if it has 10.000 daily visitors.
>>30
lol floating point
You forgot Ochiba.
>>33
Is that sort of like forgetting Poland?
Ochiba is for jerks who think Thorn is too mainstream.
Some more scripts, mostly Japanese:
Whoops, meant to put 4chandk underneath that list, not inside it.
Oh also:
> GazouBBS - the original imageboard script?
> Futaba (How could nobody have mentioned 2chan yet. jeez.)
>>20 ?
> Joyful Note - has some ...interesting... features like coloring posts and stuff
i lol'd
>>38
Whoops.
somebody posted a link to this on 4chan's /prog/...
http://himgb.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/hImgb.hs
4chandk is no longer being developed?
So what imageboard script is most like the 4chan one?
>>42
codewise, futallaby i guess.
featurewise, probably trevorchan because it blindly imitates 4chan.
please don't use either of them though.
Every imageboard script without moonrunes is either an insta-4chan-clone with every stupid misfeature possible thrown in, or a re-implementation of the terrible piece of crap that is Futaba, done with fetishistic accuracy by the self-appointed authorities on the social dynamics of anonymous messageboards, who will refuse your patches because the features you want are a bad idea and you should feel ashamed for wanting them.
None of these approaches can be fixed into producing good software.
People, please don't ever code a new imageboard script unless you have radical new ideas about the social and technical implementation.
>>45
Fortunately they are very easy to code.
> every stupid misfeature possible thrown in
> because the features you want are a bad idea and you should feel ashamed for wanting them
Wait, are features good or bad, again?
>>47
Stickies are commonly considered Bad. On one hand, having to scroll down the page to get to the real content can be annoying. On the other hand, I have five fingers. Ho, ho, ho. But seriously, stickies can be good when something is happening and brings the people of a board together; concentrates the efforts in one thread which can produce some lulzy things.
IMHO the board code should be written in a way that makes adding an extension very easy, so that everyone can benefit. Instead we have hundreds of forks.
>>48
Ah, "lulz." Another excellent argument against stickies, and so poignantly written too.
well the guy really just wanted comments on his work....so....nice job, no flameing from me
>>44 This is silly to ask, but is this poster still around? I'd like to know how he implemented a thread list in wakaba.
>Instead we have hundreds of forks.
This is what is known as "open source software development." Forking is actually part of the very definition of it.
And its great. Each time there is a fork you get less resources to accomplish the same task in similar ways, but of course thought of as completely different in the minds of the forkers.
And there are also the credit implications. Why let someone else get credit for a platform you only slightly contributed to when you can seemingly get all of it, just fork!
Have an app called Screebo? Just fork it and now it's Tyler Perry presents, Tyler Perry's Creebo brought to you by Tyler Perry.
Look at all the fragmentation in the thousands of Linux distro forks. Wait one fucking second, I though Linux didn't ever need defragmenting. Oh yeah, nm...
Unfortunately, the only good fork I've seen of an imageboard is DryDock. Everything else consists of shitty Kusaba edits where they change the stylesheet and act like they rewrote the program.
>And there are also the credit implications. Why let someone else get credit for a platform you only slightly contributed to when you can seemingly get all of it, just fork!
Please. That has nothing to do with free software. Even large companies like Microsoft will steal other people's code. The only difference is that they have deep pockets if you can afford to sue them.
> Look at all the fragmentation in the thousands of Linux distro forks. Wait one fucking second, I though Linux didn't ever need defragmenting. Oh yeah, nm...
Don't look at forks as such a bad thing. They're an opportunity to branch out and try new things. Yes, sometimes people try stupid things, but they are also an opportunity to try exciting things.
SUSE forked Red Hat, but added delta rpms. These finally found their way back into Fedora. The whole SUSE project was a success in experimenting with updates over dialup, but they also got a chance to experiment with many other things, and on the whole while SUSE failed, many other things were possible as well.
Xandros and Ubuntu both forked Debian, but while Xandros has replaced the Debian build system, Ubuntu tries to stay in it.
Sometimes, we fork for political reasons, or for social ones (maybe the developer is an asshole). Sometimes we fork because the new product isn't exactly like the old product at all. How could anyone reconcile Gentoo's portage- the antithesis of QA with other system?
Building inside someone elses' system may be better for incremental improvements, but it does nothing but hinder large changes.
>Please. That has nothing to do with free software.
Hi, would you like to meet:
>>53
Forking isn't all bad. But I have to look at it this way. Apple made Mac OSX from FreeBSD in a lot less time than anyone has been working on a mass market viable desktop Linux. That saga started before OSX and continues today.
From a pure resource to goal standpoint, fucking sucks. Forking changes the goals and then diminishes the resources for each one.
Just wait till they fork the shit out of the Linux kernel. (this is a real justified fear in the community) Linus won't be alive forever.
> Apple made Mac OSX from FreeBSD
Apple bought NeXT.
> Apple made Mac OSX from FreeBSD in a lot less time than anyone has been working on a mass market viable desktop Linux.
>>56 is correct. Apple bought NeXT - partially to get NeXTStep, and partially to get Steve Jobs. If you google Apple Rhapsody, you can find screenshots of intermediate versions of NeXT that look less like NeXTStep and more like MacOS9.
> Just wait till they fork the shit out of the Linux kernel.
Linux has already been forked. There's the big forks on kernel.org like 2.2, 2.4 and mm, but there's also forks in various distributions- RedHat and Ubuntu both supply patches that don't necessarily show up back in mainlines.
> From a pure resource to goal standpoint, fucking sucks. Forking changes the goals and then diminishes the resources for each one.
Unfortunately, the reality of software development isn't a pure resource-to-goal problem. Nobody's entirely sure what needs to be done in the long term and we're only now starting to find out. Free Software is finally feature-comparable with non-free software, so if someone wants to experiment with something, they don't need to wait and beg for Microsoft's permission- they can just go do it. As a result, we see really cool things showing up- like Xen, and Amazon's compute cluster, and Google, that simply wouldn't exist without something to fork.
Once we have a clear idea on what's good, implementation is usually pretty straightforward. Free desktops and free servers have simply opened up new opportunities to fork and experiment; they have not, as you suggest, made products worse, they have made things better.
If you disagree, you can just look at all the "innovation" a proprietary company does when they can stop forks and stop competition.
Wow, really. Steve Jobs, and NeXT and Apple. What the fuck do they have to do with each other?
and the entire development of NeXT + OS X still = less time time a desktop viable Limux has been developed.
Next time you try to out knowledge me, at least try to address the real point instead of throwing out red herrings.
Your point is invalidated.
>Unfortunately, the reality of software development isn't a pure resource-to-goal problem. Nobody's entirely sure what needs to be done in the long term and we're only now starting to find out.
HAHAHAHAHA. Only starting? MS and Apple have been finding out what people need and adjusting to new demands for decades. Try again. While no one knows the long term, and no one will. Someone needs to know the here and now. If you believe Linux needs to focus solely on the distant unforeseeable future, then you admit Linux can never be viable. You are saying Linux;s goals are to meet challenges no one knows and nothing else. I believe it can meet today's needs and look forward, but some flaws in its thinking prevent it from reaching that "here and now" in the markets it wants to soon.
>Free Software is finally feature-comparable with non-free software
Almost. Non-free software offers consistent support among a lot of other things. (Internet message boards are not really practical support as far as the "support" for most orgs out there goes).
>so if someone wants to experiment with something, they don't need to wait and beg for Microsoft's permission
Well then it is a good thing MS is more open with their latest development platforms. Want the source code to the .Net libraries? Its all out there for anyone for free. Wanna port the .Net CLI and C# to another platform? The docs are freely available standards through the ECMA.
>As a result, we see really cool things showing up- like Xen, and Amazon's compute cluster, and Google, that simply wouldn't exist without something to fork.
And to that point I can agree. But not for the reasons you think. The MS of 1999 is not the MS of 2008. Free software is the reason. But calling out MS ans the evil boogeyman detracts from the benefits of open source.
Instead of justifying the flaws in Linux and open source, you should be focusing on fixing them. That is the point of open source after all.
> the entire development of NeXT + OS X still = less time time a desktop viable Limux has been developed.
NeXT was launched in 1985. It took them until 1989 to launch their product, and they needed the GNU's C compiler to do it.
KDE took less than 2 years (1996 was the first announcement, 1998 was version 1.0)
What does this have to do with anything?
> Only starting?
Yes, only starting.
> MS and Apple have been finding out what people need and adjusting to new demands for decades.
No, they haven't.
Microsoft still hasn't delivered on the promises they made back in 1989 when they were competing against NeXT. Their web browser saw zero innovation in the near-decade they were champ.
Apple is a design firm. They make things pretty. I fail to see how they are relevant in your thesis that forks are always bad.
> While no one knows the long term, and no one will. Someone needs to know the here and now.
What the hell does that mean?
> If you believe Linux needs to focus solely on the distant unforeseeable future, then you admit Linux can never be viable.
I don't believe that at all.
> You are saying Linux;s goals are to meet challenges no one knows and nothing else
Straw man. People sometimes fork to bootstrap new research. That doesn't mean that's the only use for Linux.
> Well then it is a good thing MS is more open with their latest development platforms. Want the source code to the .Net libraries? Its all out there for anyone for free. Wanna port the .Net CLI and C# to another platform? The docs are freely available standards through the ECMA.
In response to GNU and Linux, not in spite of it.
I don't see how this demonstrates that forking is always bad, or what it has to do with forking at all.
> Next time you try to out knowledge me, at least try to address the real point instead of throwing out red herrings.
Okay you win. Your inferior spelling, and lack of facts or coherency have convinced me: Forking is never good.
>Okay you win. Your inferior spelling, and lack of facts or coherency have convinced me: Forking is never good.
That was pretty good considering how incredibly drunk I was.
No matter how you look at it, OSX has been in development for less time than Linux and it is a better desktop OS.
>Their web browser saw zero innovation in the near-decade they were champ.
I know, it is so convenient to just forget the facts and regurgitate false fanboy garbage.
Some of the features the browser introduced didn't work out, but they were still innovative.
IE3 was the first widely available browser to have any CSS support. IE5 was the first browser to have near complete CSS support.
IE4 introduced browser and OS integration (not too successful though).
IE4 introduced precursor to RSS with its channels.
IE5 introduced the scripting objects and techniques that would encompass become AJAX.
Since IE4 MS has made its rendering engine available to developers to use in their own programs.
While its hard to say who released the first DOM that could be scripted against as in DHTML (IE4 and Netscape 4 were released a couple months apart), IE4's DOM was much better than Netscapes so IE4 set those early standards for the W3C DOM.
IE5 then implemented most of the W3C DOM.
innerHTML - better than the W3C original DOM methods and the other browsers agree.
MS is the one that pushed to have JavaScript become an international standard and wrote that spec with Netscape (who was very reluctant to do so and caved under international pressure).
IE introduced the "design mode" attribute that everyone else quickly picked up. Without it TinyMCE and FCK Editor etc. wouldn't exist.
IE introduced the favicon.
SVG came from MSes VML and Sun and Adobes specs.
IE4 introduced parental controls.
IE4 introduced the iFrame element.
IE was the first browser available for free to anyone (remember, there used to be Mac and Unix versions too).
The list goes on and on. A lot of that seems like simple basic stuff now. But years ago when MS implemented them, it was cutting edge shit. You must realize that IE has been the dominant browser for something like 10 years (and still is). If it were true that MS is not creating and/or introducing innovations to their browsers, the web would look exactly the same as it did in 1998. We know that it does not. Opera and the Mozilla of 4 years ago (they are much more relevant now) could introduce all the features they like to no avail. Sites wouldn't implement them because it takes wide browser adaptation to make them useful. For many years, wide browser adaptation has meant adding the feature to IE. The web has been steadily evolving during the time IE has dominated and it is thanks to innovations added to the IE browsers.
You could make the case that IE5.5-IE6 were stale for years. For the most part they were. But don't forget, the Mozilla project was started in 1998. Took them like 5 years to get FireFox 1 out. Opera didn't offer enough to fill the Netscape void.
In the future, IE will have a JavaScript VM. I know Google came out with theirs first, and Mozilla is making one too. MS has been working on the Dynamic Language Runtime to run on top of the .Net CLR for some time now. It is actually open source too. However, I believe the delay in adding it to IE is because it doesn't have the narrow focus of just a JavaScript VM. It is an execution environment for any dynamically typed language. Implementing JavaScript is on the roadmap but Python is the first language fully implemented on it. And, they are initially using it for Silver Light which in itself is another innovation but in rich application browser plugins.
MS announced a while ago IE 8 will have process isolation similar to what Chrome has.
The innovations keep on rolling for IE. MS is such an easy target to pick on because people want to believe they are evil, backwards and incapable. Those easy arguments don't work. I know better than to let some blatant fanboy spin cloud my conclusions.
That's a lot, rest or it later.
> Opera didn't offer enough to fill the Netscape void.
In its defence, it costed money. Free talks.
>In its defence, it costed money. Free talks.
I did try to touch on that by mentioning the whole fact that IE was free on Windows, Mac and Unix. MS did the whole free software thing before Open Source really took off. Of course it was to undercut the competition. But, you have to admit the competition followed suit. Netscape went free a while after IE4 did (maybe too late, maybe it was just the immense number of bugs). Then of course Netscape expanded on the idea with the Mozilla project.
Opera is this weird mix of trying to be radically good for the web and the least accessible to wide adoption ($$$). But good move with the Wii though.
Maybe Mozilla did it better. But IE was multi-platform and free in a time when Netscape was multi-platform and not free for many. Can't count that out as innovation.
Also, I don't want to totally dis Opera. But seriously, they could have stepped up if they didn't face the same disasters that Netscape did at the time.
Maybe IE was right place right time. But they did have the competitive innovations that have been moving the web forward. Despite all the MS dick sucking, I still absolutely love the drive that Mozilla, Opera and Google have been injecting in to the scene. But just because they are rocking, doesn't mean that MS can be totally counted out.
I don't think Netscape did better though. Once Microsoft started giving away an acceptable browser, Netscape was dead. Companies need money to run, and Netscape didn't have any revenues outside of its server products.
Mozilla was a success, but it really, really helped that AOL bought up the almost-defunct Netscape as a bargaining chip and funded the development efforts. Now Google pays the Mozilla Foundation for using Google as a search engine -- which is the same reason Opera is also now free.
The only notable browser I'm aware of that didn't primarily subsist on corporate money is Konqueror (I think!).
So Opera being for-pay was almost inevitable; since it wasn't a part of something bigger (Windows, AOL, Apple) and wanted to remain solvent (unlike Netscape) the money had to come directly from customers.
> But seriously, they could have stepped up if they didn't face the same disasters that Netscape did at the time.
Whoops, I missed that line. Ignore all of the above then. :)
> I know better than to let some blatant fanboy spin cloud my conclusions.
You know so well, you can articulate your thoughts well and argue succinctly.
And maybe, when your balls drop, you'll realize Microsoft doesn't need to you to come to their rescue, and that sucking off the Microsoft teat doesn't really ward off the boogey man.
Graduate-level research is hard. It's really hard. Harder than anything you've ever done in your life.
So answer me this: If you're in the field of cutting-edge garbage collection systems, and you want to see if you can come up with an algorithm based on page-fault information, will it be easier to ask Microsoft to get some page-fault statistics collection and system calls in? Or Linux?
Forking Linux to add such struts is trivial. Forking Windows is not.
This is why forking is good. Because it was good for me.
You said forking is never good. You've got a lot of explaining to do in order to convince anyone of that.
If you've got cock-for-brains and want to turn this into a Microsoft sucking contest, go right ahead, but that's only because you can't back up what you said and are insisting on turning this into something you can argue.
> No matter how you look at it, OSX has been in development for less time than Linux and it is a better desktop OS.
Such a vague statement is meaningless. Do you consider previous versions of the OSX codebase? Apple takes four years between releases, but GNOME takes only six months!
> The innovations keep on rolling for IE. MS is such an easy target to pick on because people want to believe they are evil, backwards and incapable. Those easy arguments don't work. I know better than to let some blatant fanboy spin cloud my conclusions.
Microsoft isn't getting picked on. They certainly don't need you to defend them.
I said forking wasn't always bad, and that removing the possibility of forking is.
I reject any of your demonstrations that the lack of forking is sometimes good because I never would argue that; only that the lack of forking is sometimes bad.
If you really want to argue that, fine, but being as how you haven't been right about anything thus far, I can't see why you'd want to bother. Here are some examples:
> IE3 was the first widely available browser to have any CSS support. IE5 was the first browser to have near complete CSS support.
Here you go, no concrete statements; hinging on your private and secret definition of "widely available". Arena had CSS support and editing. "Near-complete CSS support" - so long as you don't count CSS properties and selectors.
> IE4 introduced browser and OS integration (not too successful though).
Without saying why this is good.
> IE4 introduced precursor to RSS with its channels.
Wrong. Netscape's RDF channels (on the Netscape Home Page) predates IE4. IE4's channels were released to combat it.
> IE5 introduced the scripting objects and techniques that would encompass become AJAX.
Wrong. Netscape 3 could do all of those things just as accidentally as IE5 could. Using liveconnect instead of ActiveX, a great many things were possible, and yet still it took someone else to figure out it was valuable.
> The list goes on and on.
And so is how often you are wrong.
> If it were true that MS is not creating and/or introducing innovations to their browsers, the web would look exactly the same as it did in 1998. We know that it does not.
Who said they didn't?
Why do you need a straw man?
Why don't you challenge my argument?
>And maybe, when your balls drop, you'll realize Microsoft doesn't need to you to come to their rescue
MS is proving that not all people are better off blindly believe the fanboy mininformation about thei products , such as Vista, with the Mohave Experiment marketing campaign.
>Graduate-level research is hard. It's really hard.
Oh no, a grad student. Condescending remark about how superior it is to be a grad student incoming.
>Harder than anything you've ever done in your life.
Check.
>So answer me this: If you're in the field of cutting-edge garbage collection systems, and you want to see if you can come up with an algorithm based on page-fault information, will it be easier to ask Microsoft to get some page-fault statistics collection and system calls in? Or Linux?
That is a tough one. I am pretty sure that the Windows kernel will let you view its page faults and I am surprised that Linux wouldn't do the same. I think your example would deal with forking the Linux kernel. That isn't trivial, most of the Linux community is against that. You sure could do it, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to use it. But that gets all in to practical implementation details.
I think what you are driving at is; does an open source OS make it easier to make low level OS changes? Of course it does. Are their circumstances where your changes could not be added to the original code base? That would be something happening less often.
The idea of a fork is to take one app and make it in to 2 completely separate apps. This makes little sense when the app still serves the same purpose. If I create a web content management system, why would someone need to for it to make their own web content management system? They are both CMSes and would benefit from having all the features from both. Those changes can be implemented in 1 app, even if they are conflicting, as in make it a user choice as to which way to accomplish the task. By and large, forks are political moves fed by egos. Neither app benefits and now looses resources and features. Or they could just steal the updated to each others code base, but then they would largely be similar making the fork a pretty stupid idea obviously.
Forking is practical if you want to take an app and make it in to a completley different app. How often does that happen?
>Such a vague statement is meaningless. Do you consider previous versions of the OSX code base? Apple takes four years between releases, but GNOME takes only six months!
If you wanna say NeXT was started in 1985 and GNU started in 1984 then its not really that much different. Linus started his work in 1991 though. OS X came from next, but its actual development as the OS we know today isn't the same thing they started in 1985. Its like saying the NT based Windows OSes were started in Windows 1.0. But then we would have to say Linux started when Unix did. You see how that goes.
>Microsoft isn't getting picked on.
This statement happened:
>Their [MS's] web browser saw zero innovation in the near-decade they were champ.
>They certainly don't need you to defend them.
But you need me to set you straight.