No no. You must not try to manipulate the 'raw' sql files, this can usually end in some interesting 'problems' To get the database from the server you must 'export' it properly, this way it will come as a single file. You can do this via the command line (if you have shell access) or if you have phpmyadmin you can export it with that. Then you will end up with a database_name.sql file in most cases. Once you have that downloaded you can then simply upload (import) it to the server where IPB is on into a new blank empty database.
1. This error indicates it cannot access the database. Compare what you have in VB's config file (I think it is in /includes/config) with what you entered in the converter app. Its saying you have either the wrong password or the database link is wrong ie it might be localhost or 3306. Just look closely at what is in the VB config file. 2. It does not matter as long as it is on the same account as the IPB installation. The converter cannot read across servers or accounts iirc. So you could just dump it in say /old_vb or something if you wanted. If its on the same account its fine where it is. EDIT... Regarding (1) my first thought is actually the prefix as by default they do not have a prefix.
Hello, It should be listed there as applications you do not have. If it is missing simply open a ticket to Customer Service or Support and a member of staff will be pleased to add it and generate the invoice. You would then need to simply pay the invoice for it to become available.
The converter can merge IPBoards together. You effectively 'import' one into the other. The converter is an application installed in one of them and it only needs read access to the other boards database and filesystem (so it can grab attachments and other uploads such as profile images) As you say you've converted one from VB, its not that different, The main difference is the "source" this time instead of VB is the other IPB installation. I'm not 100% sure on the duplications I'm pretty sure it will ask what you want to do with them, ie a 'new' user or to merge them where they have identical email addresses. I'd get the latest converter installed however. With IP.Content it might be easier to use that board (the one it is installed in) as the 'target' ie the one to keep and just take the data from the other board to it, it seems easier that way than trying to convert IP.Content across.
+1 this is something I would like to see return, a checkbox and / or one at the top to at least be able to remove a single page at a time. I do not think there is a need to allow it to span several pages however.
As an aside I tried to assist in a topic initially too however the nature of the problem meant that FTP / ACP access was required (as well as the logs from your host) hence me initially suggesting a ticket in the Client Area for a tech to see what was going on. Sorry to hear that the problem is still ongoing though, however I do know (I did do official ticket support for quite a while) as well as voluntary support (client to client not official) for many years here (I still do!) support staff with your ticket will help you and not leave you 'up the creak without a paddle' so to speak.
I can remember some addons for both Gallery / Blog actually (older versions) that would increment the post number for each image / entry / comment... I think they were reasonably popular which may indicate partly why this change was made perhaps as the its the 'suite' now as such rather than applications. Perhaps just the wording is wrong in the user info pane then. The hover card correctly states 'content count: x' but the user info pan (left side of the post) states 'posts', perhaps just changing that to 'content count:' or suchlike... I see what the OP is saying though. I don't have much input on this either way.
I think the idea of making it client only was simply so that those submitting bugs would have access to the latest version, ie to simply prevent those with an expired licence submitting reports for a previous version as it was likely already fixed, so saving a dev time from looking at something that was already fixed. Having said that I can see the value in possibly allowing it to be viewed (but not submit reports/replies) for a non-client.