First of all, I want to say that I have followed the Links SQL forum almost daily from the very beginning, and I think that Alex has gotten a raw deal from a few of the people who have posted here. With the exception of a few bugs (which should be expected), Links SQL works exactly as advertised. My web site has been live with Links SQL for 2 weeks now and has performed almost flawlessly. I am completely satisfied and I think that Links SQL is a superb program and Alex has done a fantastic job.

One of the reasons I haven't participated in these forums much (or provided any additional mods) is because there are a lot of people here who are only interested in having mods handed to them from the very few people who actually make any effort to contribute and make their mods available to everyone. And even when a mod is made available, it's never good enough. Some people want their own customized version and they think the person who wrote the mod should just do it for them. And if the mod doesn't work perfectly the first time someone tries to install it, there's got to be something wrong with the code - even though most all of the time errors are caused by the mistakes of the person who tried to install it. They don't want to learn anything, they just want to mooch off of everyone else and take, take, take.

With the multiple category mod for Links 2.0, I've had several people even send me there Links files expecting me to fix their problems for them. I just had someone yesterday ask me to send him my complete installation of Links because he "wanted to learn perl".

My point is it's absolutely ridiculous to blame anyone but yourself if you can't get Links to work the way you think it should work. Links is not and never will be an instant portal-in-the-box that you can stick some links into and have a complete, customized web site that will rival the likes of Yahoo! and make tons of dough. If you don't know anything about perl, then you're stuck with the default installation. It's a simple as that. If you want it customized you have three choices: learn perl (and mysql), pay someone, or mooch - which seems to be the preferred method of many.

A lot of the mods that have been requested thus far should be considered custom work. Not everyone wants 3 levels of new, a search log, or some of the others that have been requested/demanded. As more unnecessary stuff like that is added to Links, the more bloated the code will be, the more every Links SQL site will look and work the same, the less time Alex will have to update and improve the core functionality of Links, and the less customizable it will be.

With some work, Links can be made into just about anything you could want or imagine, but no one should expect Alex, or anyone else for that matter, to do that work for them. You buy the script and that's it. If someone makes a mod available that you can use, great (it's a BONUS), but there are entirely too many people here who bought Links SQL EXPECTING all these fantastic mods would be made available for them to mooch and they wouldn't have to lift a finger. Now these same people are bitching and moaning to Alex because no one has made their mods for them, and they either can't or won't do it themselves.

Before someone replies with something like "well, not everyone's a perl wiz...", that isn't the point. If you want a mod, you shouldn't expect to ask someone else to do it for you. I don't remember seeing anything about customized mods being included when I bought Links SQL. Learn how to do it yourself! Modifications are not that hard to do, but too many people don't even try. A lot of the mods for Links 2.0 will carry over to Links SQL without much of a problem. Even if you have to write one from scratch, much of the code you will use is already in the scripts themselves and Alex has said several times that he is more than happy to help and answer questions. But instead it's been mostly gimme this, gimme that, gimme, gimme, gimme:

"xxxxx is a mod that should be part of basic Links, everyone will want it..."
"I would have never bought Links SQL if I knew..."
"Links SQL = BETA"
"I can't use Links SQL until..."
"No support!"

It's all a bunch of bullshit! I'm sick and tired of seeing other people blame their own shortcomings on everything but themselves - and Alex gets the brunt of it. But we all suffer.

I think it's funny how someone who can't (or rather, won't) figure out how to do even the simplest of mods, gives others (including Alex) advice, answers questions and makes countless other completely asinine posts. I've had more than my share of laughs!

As I end my little rant here, I just wanted to let Alex and everyone else know that not everybody agrees with some of the crap that's been posted in this forum. Links SQL is an excellent script and it works exactly how it is supposed to work. It took me about 2 or 3 weeks (part-time) to completely convert my site from Links 2.0 (using site-html.pl) to Links SQL (templates) including many, many modifications that I have all made myself. Thank you Alex, for a great script and all the hard work you put into it!


Brent

You can see my site at: http://www.online-sweepstakes.com/
Though all of Links SQL's functionality is working 100%, I have a tendency to add new features while I'm working on them, so there might be a few things on the site that aren't quite polished off yet.

Wow. I totally agree. Great script, great support. nuff said.

I agree and disagree with this rant.

First of all, the keyword logging is something I needed, and I wrote it. Alex helped with a few of the finer points, and it also pointed out a short coming in the DBSQL.pm module -- the need for an indexed field.

Alex himself then returned with the code for doing the mod in about 5 lines if he made the change to DBSQL.

Many of the other suggestions/features etc have been taken to heart by Alex, who has done an impressive rewrite to this program.

There isn't a lot of whining here, but there are a lot of good ideas that have been used to make links stronger.

LinkSQL is a product that is still in evolution. To give Alex the ideas and input now, rather than after he's comitted the code, makes a lot of sense.

Also, as for perl-wiz stuff -- LinkSQL requires whole new concepts -- and even Widegtz -- who is incredibly adept at perl -- has had to take a good deal of time to learn the SQL, DBI and DBD modules.

This is a _NEW_ product, and the stuff that worked for Links 2.0 doesn't with the SQL version -- even adding a new field required more effort than adding one line to the DEF file -- hence, Alex came up with the admin editor to allow mere-mortals to do it. This isn't whining, it's a way to make the product better.

Yes, some people want things handed to them, but largely this forum has been awash in ideas and what people _NEED_. If these needs are taken into account, the way Alex has done, the program will be much stronger. If these 'mods' come from a CENTRAL place, then people don't have to hack code, and support is going to be much easier. So, if the most common features are built in, and the hooks are left for people to change them easily, or to add their own, then the program is better.

I feel a few punches were directed at me, and I don't like that. I'm (im)patiently waiting for the next release, since I don't want to make changes to Links that are going to be made obsolete by the next version. If I stick as closely as possible to the release version, and the changes I make are as modular as the release version, then with each new release and upgrade I don't have to re-write everything -- nor does anyone else.

3rd party modules can be 'plug ins' rather than code hacks, and the program is now more stable. Alex is free to upgrade and improve the engines, and everyone's code will continue to work.

Flame off.

Some times it's better to keep your feelings to yourself.

pugdog,

I've been watching the SQL forum since the earliest days. I purchased right after you, though I still haven't called for the install (busy elsewhere). While you have called for a lot of mods, I've always thought you were due, since you were also willing to run with the 1.0 release and find the cracks. At any rate, YOUR name didn't come to mind as I read this thread, but I've got to agree with Loopy --many times, I've thought to myself Why in the hell doesn't Alex just send these guys refund checks and tell them to kiss off?

Loopy
I'm here because the code's good, but -more importantly- the app design is realistic and likely to succeed in the long term. I am, however, getting a little PO'd at having to read through a bunch of whining and sniveling in this forum.

Here's a clue for those yet to come: If a script that costs something-without-a-comma-in-it is going to break you, you don't need to be messing around with web sites and servers. I've purchased and discarded more scripts than I've kept, sometimes they just don't work out as you had hoped.


[This message has been edited by bjordan (edited September 24, 1999).]

What I've posted for Alex are things to consider in the basic design of Links, not mods I need. I've found bugs, I've helped people with work arounds, I've got several things in development (waiting for the next release for some of the 'fixes' to be applied) and much more.

My philosophy is that if Alex can implement it more easily, he should. That makes it 'official' and prevents a lot of changes to the code. It's bad form to have a program that people have to edit lines of code rather than option lines. The famous "DONT TOUCH ANYTHING BELOW THIS POINT" line.

All the haphazard modifications have locked people into the current version of Links2.0 -- all those mods will have to be carried over to Links 3.0, and there is no 'standard'.

LinkSQL provides a means of allowing as many sites as possible to be upgraded, by putting as many mods as possible into the cofig files and the templates -- NOT the code.

This is _GOOD_ form.

I installed LinkSQL myself, I have it running in a heavily altered form, and 2 intermediate forms for testing, and I have many more alterations in the works. But, when this new version comes out, I'm going to have to make a lot of changes to keep the sites running -- if the changes I need are built into LinkSQL, then I won't have to make those changes again in the next release.

What are the big requests on LinkSQL? Sorting, banners, page ID, section editors, partial builds, etc. These have now been taken into account for LinkSQL.

Now they are 'official' and it will be easier to affect tweaks of these routines then to implement them from scratch in every site. If an upgrade is figured out, it will work on ALL sites, since the interface will remain the same. Good programming form.

The things people ask for here, and that are incorporated, solve problems for many people who never have to post. So while it may seem the squeeky wheel is just making noise, many of the things get addressed so that other people don't have to ask them.

Much of what I post is from my experiences working with LinkSQL and reading all the other Links forums -- "Those who do not study history, and learn from it, are condemned to repeat it."

I've posted a wish list and want list, but that is what the forum is for! We use the product, Alex is just writing it.... I've gotten very positive feedback from Alex and others, since many of them have been incorporated, and Alex has shown real interest through his responses at solutions.

I've never taken a shot at Alex, I've supported him at each step since he's very responsive and is obviously putting a lot of time into this. I hope I'm pushing him to perform, not just pushing him.

I could have sent my requests and ideas to Alex by email, but by putting them in the Forum, it allows others to comment on them, and then ideas intermingle.

And, BTW.. the _ONE_ request I did have, that is still bugging me, has gone unsolved.


http://www.gossamer-threads.com/scripts/forum/resources/Forum9/HTML/000079.html


I'm still trying to get it to work, but I'm missing something how the parameters are being passed. It's probably something really obvious too, since forms that respond with a blank form when presented with no parameters, or forms that react differently to get/post are pretty basic CGI stuff from way back.

Bottom line: it's a two way street. If you expect something, offer something. Don't just take.