Hello!
How much more secure is it, vrs the none SQL?
I have MySQL on my server, and I may consider the SQL version...
From the contents of your messages above, I tried to build an impression of your use Links v2.0 in commerce. I can tell you right away to order for the new version of Links, which I would like to call it as "Website SQL"!!! Even after placing the order, you will have to wwait for at least ttwwoo weeks. I have received a liscenced version and also have read the codes and modules. They are really so crazy that I can only say they are really genius. They are simple codes but crazy routines, really soo good, that does not makes a lot of complications but gets in to a loop doing a lot of work with the system and plays smart with the database.
As far as your further questions about functionality, most of the things what you can do with the available and downlodable script you can do the same with SQL version. Nothing more. All the same. There is no Bad URL, password to modify, and nothing much of banner. Extremely disappointing.
To tell you the difference of both. With the SQL version one is flying and with Links v2.0 one drives on the road. "Thats the real difference!.
As far as simplicity of the design of codes is concerned, I am a fan of Links (Both ANSI/Flat or SQL). As far as "Easy to coustomize" is concerned, I am a fan also but to a certain limits.
Therefore what is "Easy to coustomise" term we are talking about. Website Gestaltung or artistic design of the the project is one thing and use of the scripts for specific function is is anather issue. For furhter discussion I exclude the former and would like to objectively discuss the later.
In the modify.cgi if there is a five line code which will ask for a password, this is something that I consider really necessary. The worth of this codes are really much. Bobsie came out with a small but wonderfull modification. If this is integrated within links v2.0 with a FULL credit of Mr. Bobsie, beleiving that he permits, whats wrong. This also means that all the 200 people atleast, may be even five hundred people who may download will get really a good piece of work of Mr. Bobsie in the hand from Authentic source and does not have to boggle their heads in inserting it. For many people even to install a simple script is a problem and coustomizing is a bit too much for them.
If the BadURLs.txt mod is integrated whats wrong. Simple five lines codes makes the Links v2.0 more effective. Your creation has more worth in use, Alex. I am not a user of Links v2.0, but I say this because I feel for it and say this what I wanted to before half a year. By inserting this five line BadURL code in the Links script, I am still sure that you will be able to pay your bills (Every Boss I work for in the past said the same). Also I am rather more than sure that it will not make any complications of codes and will also not ruin your future award winning script design.
Today I have Links SQL. I am not able to start my website because there is no password routine in it. Ofcourse I can start, but in the modification area this needs to be there. This has nothing to do with .htaccess. The Links SQL is SOOO complicated for me that I am unable to modify. What can I do?
That gives me the energy to think and discuss in the DEMOCRATIC forum here, objectively. All this four,
1-Password protect in Modify.cgi
2-BadURLS or BanURLs
3-Simple advertisement routine that loads banners (Could be simplest small routine)
4- MultiCategory Mod.
are simple basic functions and they are not there. Links as a program should be such that a person should be able to start with this basic built-in features.
4 - Multiple Category Mode.
Further all the coustomization and add-ons can ofcourse be done out of choice. If I want to have statistics of banners thats different question. Look at the people who tried to use Webadverts and the problems that they had. I would be rather happy to have a very simple basic code in my Links scripts that loads a banner rather than going in to the pains of Webadverts, as at least I have the code from a reliable source whom I trust immensly. If I want to modify any part of the script no one stops. Can be done anyway. Atleast there is a chance to start with this basic functions.
This four BASIC functions needs to be in the routines of Links. This is not a demand or a complain but an humble appeal. I am sure that this community and also the proffessional eyes will agree that if thats there its nothing disadvantageous. For people who are Perl Gurus they can modify the codes erase or insert new ones but for non-Perl Gurus like me it can be of great help.
Regarding the world reputation http://www.Gossamer-Threads.com is slowly building and the current work loads, I am not too convinced about "Paying Bills" argument. By having this features built-in, what shall be then the reputation? The talk then would be - The only script available will all the necessary basic built-in features is from........Upload the script, change the permissions and start your website! Is open source from Sol or All in one built-in complete features or codes from Gossamer-Threads a better strategy? Here, there is a tremondous ammount of energy flow, very positive, a collective effort.
For further discussion, it would help me if people do not quote my texts and add emotional subjective interpretation, which is like throwing stones of words, but discuss objectively, neutral and fair.
The beauty of Architecture lies in its simplicity. And ofcourse, Architecture is the celebration of necessicity and its basic function, regardless of it may be in Buildings, Hardware or Perlscripts.
------------------
rajani
Quote:
Alex, I would like to see a demo of the SQL version, and how customizable is in the sense of look-and-feel... How much more secure is it, vrs the none SQL?
I have MySQL on my server, and I may consider the SQL version...
From the contents of your messages above, I tried to build an impression of your use Links v2.0 in commerce. I can tell you right away to order for the new version of Links, which I would like to call it as "Website SQL"!!! Even after placing the order, you will have to wwait for at least ttwwoo weeks. I have received a liscenced version and also have read the codes and modules. They are really so crazy that I can only say they are really genius. They are simple codes but crazy routines, really soo good, that does not makes a lot of complications but gets in to a loop doing a lot of work with the system and plays smart with the database.
As far as your further questions about functionality, most of the things what you can do with the available and downlodable script you can do the same with SQL version. Nothing more. All the same. There is no Bad URL, password to modify, and nothing much of banner. Extremely disappointing.
To tell you the difference of both. With the SQL version one is flying and with Links v2.0 one drives on the road. "Thats the real difference!.
As far as simplicity of the design of codes is concerned, I am a fan of Links (Both ANSI/Flat or SQL). As far as "Easy to coustomize" is concerned, I am a fan also but to a certain limits.
Therefore what is "Easy to coustomise" term we are talking about. Website Gestaltung or artistic design of the the project is one thing and use of the scripts for specific function is is anather issue. For furhter discussion I exclude the former and would like to objectively discuss the later.
In the modify.cgi if there is a five line code which will ask for a password, this is something that I consider really necessary. The worth of this codes are really much. Bobsie came out with a small but wonderfull modification. If this is integrated within links v2.0 with a FULL credit of Mr. Bobsie, beleiving that he permits, whats wrong. This also means that all the 200 people atleast, may be even five hundred people who may download will get really a good piece of work of Mr. Bobsie in the hand from Authentic source and does not have to boggle their heads in inserting it. For many people even to install a simple script is a problem and coustomizing is a bit too much for them.
If the BadURLs.txt mod is integrated whats wrong. Simple five lines codes makes the Links v2.0 more effective. Your creation has more worth in use, Alex. I am not a user of Links v2.0, but I say this because I feel for it and say this what I wanted to before half a year. By inserting this five line BadURL code in the Links script, I am still sure that you will be able to pay your bills (Every Boss I work for in the past said the same). Also I am rather more than sure that it will not make any complications of codes and will also not ruin your future award winning script design.
Today I have Links SQL. I am not able to start my website because there is no password routine in it. Ofcourse I can start, but in the modification area this needs to be there. This has nothing to do with .htaccess. The Links SQL is SOOO complicated for me that I am unable to modify. What can I do?
That gives me the energy to think and discuss in the DEMOCRATIC forum here, objectively. All this four,
1-Password protect in Modify.cgi
2-BadURLS or BanURLs
3-Simple advertisement routine that loads banners (Could be simplest small routine)
4- MultiCategory Mod.
are simple basic functions and they are not there. Links as a program should be such that a person should be able to start with this basic built-in features.
4 - Multiple Category Mode.
Further all the coustomization and add-ons can ofcourse be done out of choice. If I want to have statistics of banners thats different question. Look at the people who tried to use Webadverts and the problems that they had. I would be rather happy to have a very simple basic code in my Links scripts that loads a banner rather than going in to the pains of Webadverts, as at least I have the code from a reliable source whom I trust immensly. If I want to modify any part of the script no one stops. Can be done anyway. Atleast there is a chance to start with this basic functions.
This four BASIC functions needs to be in the routines of Links. This is not a demand or a complain but an humble appeal. I am sure that this community and also the proffessional eyes will agree that if thats there its nothing disadvantageous. For people who are Perl Gurus they can modify the codes erase or insert new ones but for non-Perl Gurus like me it can be of great help.
Regarding the world reputation http://www.Gossamer-Threads.com is slowly building and the current work loads, I am not too convinced about "Paying Bills" argument. By having this features built-in, what shall be then the reputation? The talk then would be - The only script available will all the necessary basic built-in features is from........Upload the script, change the permissions and start your website! Is open source from Sol or All in one built-in complete features or codes from Gossamer-Threads a better strategy? Here, there is a tremondous ammount of energy flow, very positive, a collective effort.
For further discussion, it would help me if people do not quote my texts and add emotional subjective interpretation, which is like throwing stones of words, but discuss objectively, neutral and fair.
The beauty of Architecture lies in its simplicity. And ofcourse, Architecture is the celebration of necessicity and its basic function, regardless of it may be in Buildings, Hardware or Perlscripts.
------------------
rajani