The biggest advantage is the ability to serve the images over HTTP or HTTPS though. IP NEXUS owners are not able to use "Use https for sensitive information? " option without breaking all images served on that page and triggering a browser warning of a non-secure website.
If you have IP.NEXUS setup to "Use https for sensitive information" and also to use the IPB CDN service then none of the CDN images are loaded when you go to checkout, request support or update sensitive information (https requests, as noted above).
This results in two major issues (IMHO):
1.) Leaves important pages listed above with a lot of broken images.
2.) Invalidates SSL certificates because you trying to load http links making the site look very insecure and broken at a most crucial time.
Please count this as my vote to enable https delivery for CDN images. AWS CDN is able to do this with a small price increase for images served via https requests.
Thank you for the response and explanation. That is a good question and I would expect the "100 image limit" to apply to each user individually based on what group they belonged to. For example, basic members could upload 100 images while paid members would see their limit increased to 500 images.
Currently IP.Gallery allows a category upload limit based only on disk quotas specified for given groups. I would like to see the option to limit the category uploads allowed based on images (i.e., basic members are allowed to upload 100 images to the gallery). This option is currently allowed for albums but not for categories.
There are two main reasons that I'd think this feature would be beneficial.
1.) Usability - my community members are not that savoy from an IT standpoint. They don't know the difference between a megabyte and kilobyte, but they would understand if they are allowed to upload 10 more images.
You have used 36.64K of 9.77mb (max per upload: 9.73mb)
You have used 15 of 100 image uploads
2.) The "Max per upload" gets readjusted based on how much disk space the end user has left available without consideration to how much actual server space the image they are uploading is actually going to take up. For example: a user has 4MB of space left, they try and upload a 5MB image and are unable to because system thinks that will put them over the quota even though we resize the image and do not keep the originals so this 5MB image only actually takes up 50K of space but user is rejected from upload.
IP.Gallery already has this feature built into the albums so hopefully part of the framework is already there for this option to be implemented.
After looking through my phpBB3 database, it looks like the XXX-YYYY is the Topic_ID and the User_ID of the member who made the post respectively. The odd thing is that a lot of them seem to be REPLIES and not actually the creator of the topic. Not sure why this would be triggering this error during the Topic conversion. The post conversion throws me an error message and stops executing after running through only a couple thousand.