Yes, that's fair enough, it depends what kind of forum you're running mainly. A business forum or just a small hobby forum. You wouldn't upgrade a production corporate/business website to an unstable beta release, but for small hobby forums as long as you're well aware of the risks and maintain backups it's your own decision. I'm just saying if you do use beta software you have to expect bugs and can't really expect rapid release fixes, you just have to deal and live with them. I plan on offering a public preview on a beta subdomain of my production forums probably when the first RC is posted.
It really bemuses me how big of an issue some people want to make this out to be. I really think some people just like to complain. There have been multiple staff replies explaining why this is the way it is. This is not a big issue. You shouldn't be changing domains more than every 6 months. If you are, you're probably doing something wrong, you shouldn't be. In the rare scenario where you actually need to and want to avoid the fee, IPS has already said you can take 5 minutes of your time to write a support ticket explaining your situation and request a waiver, since if you're willing to do this it would be unlikely you're trying to game the system. This is not IPS trying to exploit you. This is not unfair or unjustified. This is a reasonable and understandable policy.
I really doubt IPS is going to make a huge fuss over waiving a $15 fee when you're obviously not trying to abuse the system. Unless you've personally had IPS rudely refuse to waive the fee for you before I don't think the attitude is really necessary. It's surprising what simply asking nicely can do in regards to fees. Almost every time I've ever asked a company to waive a fee like this for me they've done so without issue. Rudely demanding to have the fee waived is unlikely to get you anywhere though.
Seriously, why would you do that? Maybe at the beginning you may have second-second thoughts about your new websites domain name, in which case you can contact IPS and request a fee waiver. Otherwise, if you're changing your domain that frequently, you're doing something wrong, or shady, because there's no sensible reason you should ever be changing your domains that frequently. I think this topic has been beaten to death by now.
It will take 3 video uploads that violate YouTube's terms of service to permanently terminate your websites YouTube account. One (or two, I can't remember) just to temporarily restrict your upload privileges. But yes, YouTube has an API you can use. You could actually have users link their YouTube accounts and possibly make this work. It would probably be complex to implement as a plugin/hook but I'm sure it can (probably) be done. The YouTube idea actually doesn't sound that bad to me.
What kind of hosting plan do you have, John_C? Because if you just have any type of standard shared hosting plan, you almost certainly won't even be able to use this feature you want. Extremely few shared hosts offer ffmpeg support on their servers, because video encoding is a very resource intensive process. The storage and bandwidth requirements are also equally massive. Looking at the website in your signature, I actually see that you appear to be hosting with GoDaddy of all providers. You can absolutely forget about utilizing a feature like this there. I've worked on developing platforms for video hosting before. I can do this because I spend hundreds of dollars a month investing in dedicated hardware that I lease from a datacenter to be able to run web applications like this. One of my servers has a ~6TB RAID array for storage and can easily consume terabytes worth of bandwidth a day and needs a dedicated 1Gbps connection line to sustain its peak traffic. Are you willing to pay that much for hosting? Can you manage a server on your own? Are you willing to hire a competent Systems Administrator to do it for you? Can you properly configure and tune your system for efficient media streaming? You have to realize that you're not Facebook. You can't be Facebook no matter how hard you try. If you want to offer highly complex and advanced features like this, you're going to have to invest significantly more time and money into implementing them, significantly more time and money than the average client is willing to put forth. This is a very niche and very complex feature that 99%+ of clients wouldn't even be able to use even if they wanted to, likely including you as well. Don't get me wrong, it would be awesome to have something like this, but this isn't some simple plug-and-play feature IPS can just throw in as an optional thing. Video streaming/hosting is huge and complex issue to deal with, both on the software and hosting side. It's simply not something that would be even remotely realistic for IPS to offer.
I'd imagine you'd just need to edit your template and replace the fa-bell icon with any other Fontawesome icon you want. I don't have an active install of IPB4 running right now, otherwise I'd tell you where to specifically apply the edit, but it shouldn't be hard to find.
Yeah, IPS has stated that they've gathered a lot of valuable data from upgrading the community here. So it's expected that they have a lot to work with and improve on now, so the delay in the next beta release is fully understandable. I don't think it will be much longer before we start seeing RC releases though (which is of course just my speculation).
I hope you mean your preview forum. As anyone who installed the beta software on their production forum and is currently stuck with bugs would deserve to be stuck in the situation they're in right now and have absolutely no right to complain. I don't know why you feel the need to rush Beta 3. It's just another beta release. After the beta there's still likely going to be RC's, there's still going to be a decent bit of time before an official stable release is made. Posting beta releases faster is not going to speed anything up, IPS is releasing betas at a pace they feel is reasonable to keep up with bug reports and the likes.
Hm, I don't think you should really run into any issues there. Plenty of image hosts allow you to upload images by providing links. You could properly list your domain as the referral for the download request, so if the site has hotlink protection enabled, the user would just get an error when attempting to embed the image. (If the image was hotlink protected, they wouldn't be able to link to it anyways). It wouldn't be any different than if the user downloaded the image themselves and uploaded it as an attachment anyways, just naturally always respect any takedown requests you receive, though I imagine it should be extremely rare you'd run into any issues with simple embedded images. (Quite honestly you could argue the same thing about proxying the image anyways, you're still serving the content from your server.) There are so many reasons why proxying images is a terrible idea though. It's a waste of bandwidth for you and the server your downloading from, it ties up connections to your web server, you're limited by how fast the server your proxying from it, you're likely to end up getting firewalled/throttled from servers by spamming them with large amounts of concurrent connections during peak hours, so on and so forth. Anyways, I think downloading embedded images locally would be a nice feature to have, but you would probably need to hook it somehow. I think with the new editor it should be possible.
Wouldn't it make more sense just to download and serve embedded images locally? This would take a bit of work to implement, but it makes a lot more sense. Proxying embedded images in PHP sounds awful to me personally, assuming I'm understanding what you want correctly. When someone embeds an image into their post, you want your server to work as a proxy for the image to serve the resource over a secured connection?
As a friendly correction (since I don't think English is your primary language), when you want to tell someone you'd like to take up a project for them, you generally say you're "interested in it", not "interesting in it". Interesting just describes a specific something. "This is interesting" vs "I'm interested in this", as an example. I hope that makes sense, and I don't mean to insult you or anything, this again is just meant as a friendly...