(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

With John's forum registering a 'Forbidden' sign, I turned to Puppyos.net for further information. But... I'm having a problem with the new Puppy Developer Forum.
Although I've registered and can now put my forum name and emailed login password into the required boxes, and I'm being recognized as logged-in and online, I cannot submit or post replies to the forum, nor can I access my online identity to add an avatar, there is no visible means to do so.
I'd assumed it might be because of my customized Puppy 1.08 with Mozilla; but, even using Ipup with Firefox the outcome is the same - there is nothing with which to submit a post.
Any suggestions?

P.S. Time 13.38 GMT. Spoken in a whisper - John's forum is now speeding along.

I don't understand why the Puppy community has so much trouble with forums when everyone else seems to sail right along. Maybe someone at M$ is afraid of us.

Maybe try again some other time - it could be because of maintenance ongoing at the server.

I've just logged back in. The forum recognizes I'm there amongst others:
"Bert, Pizzasgood, marksouth2000, Fossil,"

But, the login boxes clear to 'Name' and '**'. As I move through the various forum topics, I'm recorded as, 'Users browsing this page: 1 [1 Guest]'
There's still nowhere were I can post an entry.

I guess Flash is right, M$ is out to get me!

Try Dillo - in the past it saved my day.

I have no idea what the problem is. After logging in, a button should appear at the top labelled "Profile" and you can add an avatar etc.
Maybe "Fossil" is some kind of key word in the script... try registering with some other name.

Yea , What the heck is going on here..?

Does anyone know why the forum sometimes dosen't respond..??

I tried and tried to get in here yesterday but couldn't.. FORBIDDEN.!

I thought "Oh Crap" , "What happened , Did i get banned.?"

Nope , But still wonder why the server ( if that's what it is ) keeps locking people out. hhhmmm dunno..

In retrospect the answer was very simple: I'd disabled cookies!
I've got a thing about anonymous companies dumping little packets of info on my computer without my approval. Therefore, I'd turned of 'accept cookies' under Mozilla's Privacy and Security.

Oops!

Yeah, always leave accept-cookies turned on. As far as I know, there's no security risk.

My mom always told me not to accept cookies from strangers. But then, she also thought installing XP on her computer would be a good idea. Well, it was almost worth it to get rid of WinME, but now it goes even slower. Bah. C is for 'cookie,' and that's good enough for me....

Your MOM gave good advice ! What she left out -
(- not to be taken as "qualified",~ IOW = take anything I say w/a healthy dose of salt) !

IMO - Cookies should SELDOM be a requirement - there are better methods of disclosing data.
Nor should Java/Javascript be default enabled - or own browser sending it's I.D. - and certainly never the O/System in use.

* Fools rush in & alla that sort've reminders.
I shudder how many enable every M/M "plug-in" they can :
Then click on unverified URLs at unknown sites -
Linux is just as vulnerable as other systems to embedded malware disguised as graphical links

EVERY ploy known is used to finger print & assess vulnerablities
Running in RAM nullifies (relative - NEVER "easy" to root or sniff undetected) dangers:
However, that presumes nothing is ever saved back to hard drive - NOR any is mounted during session while on-line.

It is dubious anyone will ever be rooted - but just change the incentives -

I contend : Cookies are one way of tracking - we all have been bombarded by spam -
Friendly sites > Contrary to public claims in best of intentions -often the stored info has been accessed.

The WEB is FACELESS =
Hacked servers - insecure B/B's .. R-DOS attacks that masked true intent - consider >
If large institutions can fall prey - think how we poor home users are unprepared ?

It is not what we know for a certainly that can hurt -

YMMV