Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Gossamer Links : Pre Sales :

In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL

(Page 1 of 2)
> >
 
In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL
Hi,
Has anyone ever heard of In-Link? Apparently it is a sql based directory management program much like links sql for only $195. I checked out their demo at http://www.in-link.net and it has all of the features that links sql offers plus more. The administration features are very impressive. I am still trying to find the perfect software for my website, can GT tell me why links sql is worth twice the price of In-Link 2?

-Joseph Levy
Webmaster
www.jl-consulting.com

 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Here are the differences/drawbacks I see with the product you've mentioned:

1) Only runs on Apache servers/MySQL/PHP. Links SQL is more flexible...it runs on most web servers (including Windows 2000), works with different SQL database apps, including MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, etc. (So, the price differentiation is based on LINKS SQL being more portable across different platforms and operating systems.)

2) The product only works with MySQL 3.22 and above, versus LINKS SQL can run with lower versions of MySQL.

3) The product looks like it will not build static web pages...based strictly on dynamic PHP pages. The nice thing about LINKS SQL is that you can build static web pages.

I am sure that there are other feature differentials, but these are the biggest ones that makes LINKS SQL a superior product.

Regards,

Eliot Lee Wink
http://anthrotech.com/
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
I think there are a lot more differences, besides it's a new product, with limited deployment, testing and end-user debugging.

I have still not seen a product that has made me wish I have not started using the GT products yet. The more I get into the back end, and developing large applications, the more I like it.

Big difference is Links is pure perl, while in-link is PHP. PHP is still fairly immature, and it's popularity stems more from the ease at which ISP's can provide it, rather than any inherent benefits over perl/mod_perl.

There are things you cannot do with PHP that you can do with perl, cron jobs are one. PHP has to run within the server, as a response to some sort of action. It's a reactive sort of process. Perl, on the other hand, can run reactively, proactively or interactively.

Even if I could not run GT's Links SQL, I don't think this program would be at the top of my list of choices. Look around some more, you'll find loads of other more stable, longer term projects.

For my money, though, I would not go with anything but the GT products. The whole back-end engine and sql-engine is more and more impressive for site development.

PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ:http://LinkSQL.com/FAQ
Plugins:http://LinkSQL.com/plugin
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Hi
I guess Links SQL's strongest features don't make much of a difference for me. My server is linux based running apache, why would anyone want to run a windows based web server? I also have MySQL 3.23, Oracle is way to expensive, so I would be using a MySQL database anyway.
The reason that I want this type of a directory management engine is so I can have dynamic pages built on the fly, what is the point of having static html pages?
PHP seems to be much fasters than perl scripts, and I don't really have the need for cron jobs. What I need is basically the directory management system that Links SQL or inlink provides.
I have searched the web extensively for this type of program and have found very few that has the features that meet my demand. If you would like to suggest some, I would love to look into it.
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain some differences between Links SQL and In-Link. But from seeing what Links SQL has to offer for more than twice the price of In-Link, I think I am going with In-Link.

Joseph Levy
Webmaster
www.jl-consulting.com

 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Sounds like you've made up your mind, and want someone to justify it for you.

I can't do that.

PHP is a different type of beast, and they do _not_ run faster than perl scripts. They are very much dependent on the server load, and you need to compare mod_php with mod_perl, not mod_php with standard perl cgi. That's the biggest mistake, not comparing apples to apples.

If all you want is a directory management program, then that is all you'll get. But, before you decide that, you should tour the sites-in-action area here, for all the other uses people who only wanted a links management system ended up putting links to use as.

Links SQL is definitely high-end in the performance and features area. It makes running smaller sites a joy, and large sites, possible.



PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ:http://LinkSQL.com/FAQ
Plugins:http://LinkSQL.com/plugin
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
In Reply To:
what is the point of having static html pages?
The point of static pages is that they are less of a strain on the server than executing code for every request.

They may take up quite a bit of space to store but after the original build process they are a much more efficient way of displaying content than using dynamic scripts. There is no processing to be done, the page can be displayed as is, so load times are quicker.

Installs:http://wiredon.net/gt
FAQ:http://www.perlmad.com

 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
In Reply To:
what is the point of having static html pages?
On top of what's already been said, having static pages is much more friendly to search engines. A lot of search engines won't index php or cgi pages, so having html versions can really help increase the traffic to your site. We get tons of referrals from search engines that have spidered our Links SQL demo pages (granted those people aren't useful, but I hope you see the point). ;)

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Hi Alex

In Reply To:
On top of what's already been said, having static pages is much more friendly to search engines. A lot of search engines won't index php or cgi pages, so having html versions can really help increase the traffic to your site. We get tons of referrals from search engines that have spidered our Links SQL demo pages (granted those people aren't useful, but I hope you see the point). ;)
Though I agree that static html pages are more friendly, I checked with the In-link team about indexing a index.php page and this is what came back.

In Reply To:
Just wanted to remind everybody - index.php will get indexed by all search engines no matter what.
Hope that adds to the discussion.

http://www.nzcid.org.nz
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Yeah the main index.php might but nothing else....none of the category pages etc....

Mods:http://wiredon.net/gt/download.shtml
Installs:http://wiredon.net/gt/


 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Just some things :)

In Reply To:
There are things you cannot do with PHP that you can do with perl, cron jobs are one.
PHP can installed as a CGI, so you have the shebang up the top

#!/usr/bin/php

and then run that script on cron. So PHP can have cron jobs.

And the reason that search engines don't index the PHP pages is when they have the little pain in the neck "?" symbol in the URL. Using a neat little trick, writing the URL as...

http://www.domain.com/page.php/variable1/value1/variable2/value2/

And then access all that using the path_info global thingo - and splitting it up, you can pass values in URL's and have search engines use it. So a links page might look like...

http://www.site.com/page.php/action/add/template/snap/

In regards to question though, I think Links SQL is the best option to use. The actual features isn't really an issue, as it is easy to add stuff to existing scripts (Hacking them in, making a plug in might be a bit more work...), but the overall code/logic/backend of this script is so good - you will want to use it. This is coming from a PHP user - so don't think I'm a religious perl person that is trying to influence ya :)

Michael Bray
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Ok,

So make it "mod_php" which is what most people are running. This is how most programs available on the web for PHP are written, and used.

I'm pretty sure most ISP's do not offer the cgi version of PHP, but only the mod_php form, due to resource problems.

I could be wrong, but when I looked at installing PHP to try it,that was a decision I had to make -- to use the mod_php verion or cgi version. The only real advange of php over basic perl, is the mod_php version. It's easier to run and set up than mod_perl.

There are still other advantages of perl, and the php/perl wars will rage as long as many of the other wars, I'm sure.

Here's an article on running PHP as a shell script :

http://www.phpbuilder.com/...darrell20000319.php3





PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ:http://LinkSQL.com/FAQ
Plugins:http://LinkSQL.com/plugin
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Hi Paul!

Anything is possible :D

In Reply To:
Then, we can custom-produce a version for people that absolutely need to let spiders process all of the categories. It may even be a mod for the categories.
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
hey Paul,
you must be a funny guy to say that...Wink
windsor

 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Sorry I don't understand.

You can't spider dynamic pages that don't exist.

Mods:http://wiredon.net/gt/download.shtml
Installs:http://wiredon.net/gt/


 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
yep... I mean you are all right Paul :)

 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Too get the details on the search engine friendly method I was talking about have a look at:

http://www.zend.com/zend/spotlight/searchengine.php

Its PHP code there - but I am sure that it could be easily translated using Perl. I think this is the same method that Amazon.com uses - as they don't have any question marks in there URL's.

As for the Mod_PHP thingo - I am 95% sure you can install PHP as a CGI and as a Apache Module.

Michael Bray
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Hi,

This is quickly starting to turn into a php vs perl war, something we've all beaten to death long ago. =)

Of course, as the comments show on the url posted, this does not work on windows (and yes there is a patch, but try convincing an ISP to put that on when microsoft considers it a security risk).

That's why I had to stop using PATH_INFO a long time ago (not since DBMan 1.x), although I think there are some neat things you can do with it.

Cheers,

Alex

--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
:-) - Wasn't trying to start a PHP war, I've given up on trying to save all you guys.

Shame Microsoft won't put it on windows though - I don't really see how its a security threat, and it really allows you to do some neat stuff.

Michael Bray
 
In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Hi Paul!

In Reply To:
You can't spider dynamic pages that don't exist.
Though in general that statement is correct, however unless one knows exactly how a product is written one could be wrong in using it to describe a particular product.
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
One could also be right, because one downloaded a particular product before one made that comment Wink

.....and all category pages are dynamic and use a query sting and so until the main script is executed the pages in effect don't exist so they won't be spidered Smile....static html pages on the other hand _do_ exist and can be spidered.

If you can provide evidence that I am wrong, please feel free.

Mods:http://wiredon.net/gt/download.shtml
Installs:http://wiredon.net/gt/


 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Paul,

On a unix server, if you had and you used the Path_info work around I posted above, and then generated a page with all the links on it (so it may have 15,000 links on it), and then linked to that from a page on your site - the spider would follow the links, and you would have the dynamic content spidered and avaialble on a search engine.

That is the only method I can think of from the top of my head - I am sure there is other ways to trick search engines into listing dynamic content.

Michael Bray
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Yes I know - I'm not disputing that - I'm talking about a normal installation with no "tricks or tips".


Mods:http://wiredon.net/gt/download.shtml
Installs:http://wiredon.net/gt/


 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
Yeah - Links is basically the only program that is usuable without adding "Tips and Tricks", which is what I really like about it. Its a complete program, and not something that someone gave up on half way and still released.

Michael Bray
 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
....I would also hazard a guess that it is _much_ easier to customize than In-Link. Mainly because of the support forum and resources but also because of the way the system works (plugins etc..).

Mods:http://wiredon.net/gt/download.shtml
Installs:http://wiredon.net/gt/


 
Re: In-Link 2.0 vs. Links SQL In reply to
I looked around the In-Links site and I would have to agree with Pugdog.

But, your mileage may vary, so if you've looked over the In-Link script, lurked on the forums, and are comfortable with the "guarantee", go with In-Link.

But, most certainly do not ask yourself why GT Links SQL is the standard In-Links compares itself to both on their site and on Hotscripts.

--
Rob Van Deren
BeaverheadRiver.com
SW Montana's Premier Online Directory
> >