Good to hear that one worked!
Thank you very much for the feedback and the very interesting debate.
Unfortunately ... I will have to agree with Oya on this one. Making a software package for a large community of people, which simply want to have a little way of building a community of their own online, on all kinds of hosts and with all kinds of backgrounds... forces us, IMHO, to take into account the target of the software, and the real conditions out there in which it is used
. Specially since here, we're talking about security.
I wish I could see a way to do "the right thing" for the software itself (which is this case, would rather amount to let the host do their job and provide proper separation, let the operating system do its job, and do the forum software package job, which is to provide forum software nicely written, taking advantage of operating system resources and use them to run nicely and with less quirks - as holodoc advised)... but I cannot agree with a compromise with security.
holodoc, I don't doubt you're right... it is not exactly a forum software job to provide for hosts' shortcomings, and yet, if security is concerned, we can try to do our best. Maybe it's not "the right thing" for the forum software, but it is the right thing to do for our users, their data, their security. IMHO.
SMF is not for professionals or for Academia, it's for every user who wishes to try building a community quick and see what is like, and which may learn in time what is a good host and what is a bad host, but doesn't have to know from the start. SMF is not meant to run in vitro... and we're talking about security. Anything else, that bad/outdated hosts might not provide, I'd be happy to compromise about - and do the right thing for the software (ditch them outdated stuffs if necessary!
). (and you know there are
, and will be considered for next versions). But with security, no, can't do.