Gossamer Forum
Home : Products : Links 2.0 : Discussions :

Links 3.0

Quote Reply
Links 3.0
Alex, I would like to ask you what features you plan to add in the next version?

The reason I ask, if because there are tons of great MODS out there, for Links and I would like to see alot of them added in the regular version.

REASON:
I can install and configure just about any CGI script, BUT Having to edit them all the time, every time a new gread mod comes out is a pain in the butt, and frankly, the time it takes is far too valuable to waste.
I really love this Links script, but I am afraid new features are taking for ever to get implemented. I am sure if you create a "Feature Request" forum, you will see what I am talking about.

I have decided to use your script on several sites, but now I may regret it, because adding all the functionality is a real pain, and securing and unsecuring the admin directories all the time, every day is killing me.

I was hoping, and have waited forever to see what new features will be implemented.

So, I would like to know if you would ask the people who wrote Mods, if they will permit you to add them to the next full version, or write your own version of those mods.

Among some of the features badly needed are:

1 SECURITY, SECURITY SECURITY
2 A controll pannel like UBB has, with more customization features, and ease of use.
3 Password protection for Links Modifications


These are just a few of the looooooong list I have in mind.

It seems to me (and I will not mention any names) that others who are competing with Links, are adding features at a great speed, and it is becoming very hard not to just pay more, for the added functionality features and security.

I sincerely do hope my comments above have not offended you in any way.

Now, Questions for the Hackers.

Would you permit Alex to add your free Mods to the next version, if your mods are free?

The answers and response to the above will greatly affect my decission which I will need to make in the next week or so, if I will stay with Links or move on to another program...

Sincerely,

Solomon

------------------
Website Solution
www.websitesolution.net



[This message has been edited by Website Solution (edited June 24, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hmm, it's ironic that you should post this. I was just thinking of saying how impressive it is that a script could be so powerful and polished in a version as low as 2.0! And if I'm not mistaken, that jumped directly from 1.1 (no 0.0000013b versions...).

I use Links and DBman, and am incredibly happy with both. I first ran across DBman, and couldn't believe how easy it was to set up. A while later, I thought I'd see what this "Links" thing was all about. I quickly realized how helpful it could be, and set to installing it. Unfortunately, "easy to set up" did not enter into my definition. Once I hurdled the initial obstacles, I found that it is written in a manner that makes customization very intuitive. Eventually I became content with the look of my Links, and turned my attention back to DBman, realizing that it too could be customized very nicely.

What's the point of all this? For someone like me who doesn't want something straight out of the box (isn't the web about creativity?), I couldn't ask for a better product. Well, maybe a verify function that works. Wink These are easy and enjoyable programs to toy with.

Alex, you've written some remarkable scripts! I almost wish my site was commercial and/or received ad sales so I could gain the satisfaction of registering both Links and DBman.

Dan

------------------
My links are at: http://www.dankaplan.com/runninglinks
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Dan,

I am not disputing your statements at all.

However, let me point out a few things to you sir:

For someone who wants to use Links on a Comercial site, and Links being the main feature/tool of the site, ONE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT SECURITY. Yes its easy to say, use .htaccess blah blah blah.
But, for those of us who travel for a living, and have to cary laptops, and our time is VERY VERY LIMITED, while trying to establish something on the web, it can be very frustrating, not having any good built in security right into the script.

Yes, Links 2.0 is AWSOME!
I am NOT disputing it, BUT,

SHOULD NOT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE DOZENS OF MODS/HUNDREDS WITH ADDED FEATURES AND FUNCTIONALITY TELL YOU SOMETHING?

SOMETHING LIKE: "BOY I WISH LINKS HAD THOSE FEATURES" ???

Yes, for people/kids who have time to toy and do not have to work, and try to start a business, time is inconsequential.

But, if Alex is to Target the Business community, and produce a growing product, I think he should, and DOES listen to customer/potential customer's feedback.

Why is it that when someone posts a question/request/sugestions, people immediately jump the gun and assume its a BAD BAD thing?

Yes, I am a big fan of Links, AND DBman, I am simply making a some comments and sugestions.

I would like to get Alex's response, if you don't mind...

------------------
Website Solution
http://www.websitesolution.net
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
I don't know how Alex feels about it but any of my mods certainly are available to be included with the next upgrade to Links.

Another comment though. No matter what Alex puts into the next version, no matter how many of the mods are built-in, no matter how many features there are, it will never be enough. Everyone wants something different. One person wants one kind of mod, someone else wants a different kind, on and on. It is my considered opinion that the well for mods is never ever going to run dry.

To me, that means having an easily customizable script is a plus. It is just about the only way to be all things to all people (or be as close as possible at least). As I used to tell the people who worked with me when I was in corporate America, "give them an inch and they'll want to be a ruler."

I do agree, though, that it would be nice to have a "Features" forum to ask for things to be included in links. In the interim, the Modifications Forum and this Discussion Forum are the next best things.

Just my thoughts.

[This message has been edited by Bobsie (edited June 24, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Bobsie,

I do agree with you 100%

I do hope you realize, I am not asking for the worls, just a few essential functionality features and SECURITY, of course...

BUT, I think MANY of the Mods including yours, would be a BIG plus to be added.
Here one point I like to make.

Just about every site using Links, uses Most of those Mods.
Now, I like to call that DEMAND for the features of the mods, would you not agree?

I only wish I had tons of hours to install every mod needed.

If we at least had an idea of what will be in the next verssion, and an idea of the release of the next verssion, that would mean a great deal to me, and I am sure I speak for many others.

I think Ted O'Neil, Creator of UBB has listen to the users/customers, and this is one very good thing...

Just about every site I go to, has UBB installed...

This says alot.

The support and Feature updates of UBB has improved so much over the last year, I doubt it is matched by any other CGI site...IMHO.

Thanks again for your comments...
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hello there!

Here is the first man who spoke before I wanted to post this topic.

Before half a year ago I saw the new version of Links v2.0. After regularly visiting the forum, I also noticed that there are hundreds of people in the que who try to invest into a lot of energy coustomizing it, an attempt to acheive a simple basic need. However this adventure would not suit me as I thought if I coustomize now with some other mods, then later I may have problems with later versions and also updates.

Links v2.0 I saw as really a ""TOOO basic in its functionality" For any serious work, regardless of the number of links, the very programming invites a real hard work of coustomization. As a Qualified Architect, I am used to Designing Buildings and am always questioning the very basics of an issue.

Links v2.0 "DOES NOT" provide this basic functionality according to my way of thinking as to its designing the logic of programming. Its like living in a room or a house, you can close the door but there is no lock!!! This is my view and it is not meant to be further discussed by anyone and also it is not meant to offend anyone. I respect it, like it, and also love it, but could not use it.

1 - Is this a cosmetic add-on / Mod or a simple basic function?
If I was a designer, I would for sure include a small routine which checks a BadURL.txt file that does not allow known URLS which people do not want to have them in their directory. This is not, certainly not the same as referrer variable which is already in the config file.
I have a file of badURLs which is 15KB! How do I include all this everytime there? Finally Pasha asked me and designed the code. Look in the forum.

2 - Basic password protect scheme.
One could easilly device a small routine which would simply check the password.

3 - A call for a banner function variable, which could be a use from the internal routine or also the use of external script. But a call has to be there. So a person like me could simply use is with simple basic function.

Now looking at the at the scripts these codes are really really "NOT" that complicated, nor can I beleive that it takes too much time to design them for an expert like Alex or Bobsie.

And actually Bobsie has really brought some really great mods.

Now if one wants to have a classified ads system or an online catalog etc, they are add-ons but not the BadURLs.txt mod!!! What is an add-on and what is a basic mod/function?

I beleive that the above three issues are not really add-ons but are simply basics. Moreover I am "BASICALLY" not impressed at all by a Flat file database system. So a suggestion of a Links v3.0 based on the fat file databases does not get in to my head "AT ALL"

So actually, my suggestion would be to only develop the Links SQL version (I am a liscenced user)(Ops, not yet a user, as the scripts is not yet fully installed.), ans also to reduce the price of Links SQL to the extend that it reaches to a very large group of people around the world. Ofcourse, Alex could never agree on this, but i do beleive that not everyone have the possibility in the world to pay for it. But ofcourse business is a business.

I see that Links SQL is a script that is and has a potential of helping a larger number of the internet community but I fear that it may not due to its price. Those simple basic features are also not included in the Links SQL!!!!! I even thinks the name of Links SQL is wrong, completely. Questioning even the name, I would rather name this script as "Website SQL"!!!! (This name gives a louder RING in the heads of people like me.)

Moreover the speed at which The Genius brings a new update/Product could be a bit faster or sooner. (I waited half a year for Links SQL)

Thankx and

Cheers as Alex always says,

------------------
rajani











Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
I am disgusted with some of the comments I have read in this thread. If you complain about the functionality of links and criticize Alex for not updating it fast enough, I would urge you to go go find a better freeware program, or better yet, go pay someone thousands and thousands of dollars to design a system all your own with free support!

Quote:
After regularly visiting the forum, I also noticed that there are hundreds of people in the que who try to invest into a lot of energy coustomizing it, an attempt to acheive a simple basic need.

-or-

Links v2.0 I saw as really a ""TOOO basic in its functionality" For any serious work, regardless of the number of links, the very programming invites a real hard work of coustomization.

-or-

SHOULD NOT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE DOZENS OF MODS/HUNDREDS WITH ADDED FEATURES AND FUNCTIONALITY TELL YOU SOMETHING?

Personally, I customize, modify, and tweak the links script because I want it to meet my own site requirements. The origional script would have worked just fine, I am just addicted to customization.

Quote:
I beleive that the above three issues are not really add-ons but are simply basics. Moreover I am "BASICALLY" not impressed at all by a Flat file database system. So a suggestion of a Links v3.0 based on the fat file databases does not get in to my head "AT ALL"

So actually, my suggestion would be to only develop the Links SQL version (I am a liscenced user)(Ops, not yet a user, as the scripts is not yet fully installed.), ans also to reduce the price of Links SQL to the extend that it reaches to a very large group of people around the world. Ofcourse, Alex could never agree on this, but i do beleive that not everyone have the possibility in the world to pay for it. But ofcourse business is a business.

Again, I think the greatest good of a flatfile database is that it is free! It would be nice of course if Alex decided to give everything he created away for free, or better yet give us all unlimited free site hosting with SQL support. Not only does the SQL version cost money, but so does an SQL server, software, and/or webhost.

Quote:
Moreover the speed at which The Genius brings a new update/Product could be a bit faster or sooner. (I waited half a year for Links SQL)

Are you kidding? Look at it from Alexs' point of view. Spend your time creating a free product, or spend your time earning a living on pay products? People are complaining about the time spent making mods, or customizing the script, but did you ever stop and realize how much time and effort Alex must spend creating new versions for us? Kind of ironic eh?

Aaron

------------------
www.serve.com/garden/geosearcher





[This message has been edited by Aaron (edited June 25, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Sol,
If Links is going to be the most important part of your website or only part of your website, dont you think that you should spend time working on it. Websites are not cerated in a day. Look at mine, is already been 2 months in the making. Sol, not every script is going to work the exact way that you think it should. As from a programmers view, the mods usually take 10 minutes to install. Oh yea, your still on those Windoze NT servers. forgot. JTLYAK, Im no longer using links. I have custom designed a script to mirror dmoz.org. I was basically using most of there structure anyway. Why bother hosting it on my server? I will still surf these boards daily helping others.

------------------
Sincerely,

Netoo! Support
Netoo! Internet Services Of America.
http://www.netoo.phiberoptix.com
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hi

Cool it guys!

I like to back-up Aaron's comments.

I don't use UBB - when I compare the quality of the scripts here and and the quality of these forums to most of the other perl/cgi scripts and their websites found via the cgi-resources site I can't really understand why anyone has any complains about Alex's scripts and site Smile

P.S. I'm a half qualified architect Wink

Chris
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hello Chris!

My collegial greetings!

Please see to your comment here about all those above who has written about Links.

Nobody is complaining. Atleast I am not. Clear! Nor did I have an impression that other did.

The discussion is simply an opinion on this democratic forum. How can it be better. Let tell. This is fair to speak about it and also if is fair to give a feedback. For me it is important to get a feedback from my clients (As an Architect) which if you are in those lines would understand immensly. Any creator needs feedback. It makes the water move a bit.

Everybody like the creation here, especially me, and to tell you the truth, I bought the new version out of "Goodwill of Alex". Had it not been the case, I would have atleast waited for the demo, which he did not even put it untill now, but promised to put it around 15 June. I bought it and have started understanding it, and moreover appreciating it.

So get the idea of complain OUT of your head.

Thanks,

------------------
rajani













[This message has been edited by rajani (edited June 25, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hello Aron!

I am fully in agreement with you about all the points. You are right! I am now not so young to not to think and consider all those things to say this. Ofcourse, I thought about it. Ofcourse I know this. I still thought what I wanted to say, as I did not agree with the current basic functionality, and will never do, regardless of any discussion now and further, even if Alex comes here and tells me that he does not agree at all.

We are not here to enter in to conflicts, but simple exchange of views. It is from this point of view, I exchange ideas and therefore if people can exchange such a way, then it is a healthy discussion.

Also, please try to understand if I tried to compliment or critisize!

Thanks for your exchange anyway, I ofcourse agree.

------------------
rajani













[This message has been edited by rajani (edited June 25, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Personally, I like it just as it is. And I am sure that Alex will end up implementing some mods that he deems essential into his next version of Links.

However, udgrading costs money, which Alex must recoupe (and rightly so). If that happens, then what will everyone be "exchanging ideas" about?

Aside from that possibility...sure, maybe a new forum might be nice.

Joe
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Aron, you obviously did not read what O wrote, or read and comprehended only parts of what I wrote, and ignored the rest...

Its sad how people cannot put their biased mind aside and think openly...

If you are so discusted with some comments and go to great lenght to express your opinion, why do you not respect the opinions and comments of others and why don't you comment on the comments you are not discusted with?
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Oh, goody... Sol's here. Frown

For my part, any mod that I write, modify or extend is unquestionably free for Alex to use in a future version. (Lotta help that is, I'm sure!)

I'd like to see the password modify mod be used in a future version.

I'd also like to see a few built-in sorting schemes that are commonly asked for, and that the admin may select without having to edit the sorthits subroutine (such a sort by date, or rating or average daily hits).

I'd like to see links.db indexed by category number rather than category name for those of us who are poor planners who may need to restructure their categories adding more levels as the database grows.

More than any added features, I'd like to be certain that a future version will remain as customizable as the script is now. No set of features will fill every webmaster's needs. Heck, no one set of features would suit my needs... I've got a couple instances of Links set up that serve totally different purposes and use totally different feature sets. It's the most customizable script I've come across, and I don't want to lose that.

Phoenix
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hi,

I just thought I'd offer my comments on this:

Quote:
For someone who wants to use Links on a Comercial site, and Links being the main feature/tool of the site, ONE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT SECURITY. Yes its easy to say, use .htaccess blah blah blah.
But, for those of us who travel for a living, and have to cary laptops, and our time is VERY VERY LIMITED, while trying to establish something on the web, it can be very frustrating, not having any good built in security right into the script.

The script is much more secure with proper server side protection then it ever could be with cgi protection. I left it unimplemented because I feel you will be better protected behind an .htaccess file then through some built-in CGI mechanisim. There's no reason anyone should be able to go to any url inside of your admin directory, so why let them?

Security may be a pain, but it is neccessary. I don't want to fool people into thinking their links.db, or worse yet their email.db file, is safe by making the security 100% CGI based.

As for password protection for modify.cgi, I don't believe in it personally. I feel human judgement when looking at the original and the new record side by side is better then any password system could ever offer. I know a lot of people have asked for this, but all I can say, is give the add-ons a shot. Smile

Quote:
SHOULD NOT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE DOZENS OF MODS/HUNDREDS WITH ADDED FEATURES AND FUNCTIONALITY TELL YOU SOMETHING?

My main goals with Links is that it could run anywhere, be stable, be secure, and easy to customize.

I don't want to add in a lot of features without making sure they fit the overall design goal. I can't please everyone, and don't want to just "make the feature an option" as that adds to the bulk and complexity of the code.

I get the most satisfaction out of seeing all the different things people have done with Links. It's really amazing going through the Sites in Action list.

Quote:
Moreover the speed at which The Genius brings a new update/Product could be a bit faster or sooner

You won't ever see new updates to Links on a weekly or even monthly basis. First, it doesn't cover the bills enough for that to make sense. Wink Second, I want people to be confident that the program they are getting is stable software, and it won't require you to update it every other week. Also, lack of releases doesn't mean the program is not still being developed.

As for Links SQL, I'm really impressed with how it's turned out. It's a 100% rewritem and now works under mod_perl for really quick performance. It uses a custom module for easy access to all the links data which will make developing custom apps very easy. I'll be putting up a demo and some documentation for it this weekend. I'll also be putting up some more technical specs on how it's put together.

Cheers,

Alex
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Alex, I wpould 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...

As for the response above, I cannot say I was amused... Wink
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Sol,

Quote:
For someone who wants to use Links on a Comercial site, and Links being the main
feature/tool of the site, ONE HAS TO WORRY ABOUT SECURITY. Yes its easy to say,
use .htaccess blah blah blah.
But, for those of us who travel for a living, and have to cary laptops, and our time is
VERY VERY LIMITED, while trying to establish something on the web, it can be very
frustrating, not having any good built in security right into the script.

Why and how are you cerating a webhostig company, script indexes (copies of cgi.resourceindex.com), and copies of other sites if you are always traveling. Sol, why should we waste our time on you? What is one unique thing you did or gave to us or anyone else at scriptkeeper.com? Messages like, where can i find an exact copy of this script or can you make me an exact copy of this script?

------------------
Sincerely,

Netoo! Support
Netoo! Internet Services Of America.
http://www.netoo.phiberoptix.com
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
I would like to backup Alex and his support group. I just started using Links 2.0 for about 2 months. I was only 15 at the time (now 16). Since the start, I have no knowledge what-so-ever on Perl (I just knew how to install scripts). My site was running on NT and I couldn't set my permissions. Yet, the power of Links prevailed. I soon got the hang of Links. In a few weeks, I designed the Webcrawler template. To me, Links is so much easier to use and add mods than UBB and other scripts.

Alex support forum really boosted my enthusiasm for writing code in Perl. I bought 2 books on Perl because of his wonderful program. Soon, my first mod for Links 2.0 will be out.

Also, the mods that these people are writing are very simple to install. If you got the script to work, all you need is to cut/copy/paste. How hard could that be?

I have added many of the mods that people have been writing despite the problems with an NT server. Soon, I found how to protect my admin scripts so no one can access them.

Quote:
Security may be a pain, but it is neccessary. I don't want to fool people into thinking their links.db, or worse yet their email.db file, is safe by making the security 100% CGI based.

I agree exactly with Alex. Even though my scripts are protected, my directories are not. The visitor must know where the exact location of email.db so that he can download the file and spam people with it. Most search engines will index them into their database. I found a full version of UBB and the adminstrator password to the UBB forum once on Hotbot. Still to this day, they basically used the same password for their entire site, but I don't like messing them around. (I've got hacked into my email.db once, and it was bad. It was on my part, I should have gotten .htaccess)

If you feel that security is necessary, just go and get a UNIX server! You should make alot of money with that site of yours and a couple of other ubb network sites. I went out and got me a UNIX server. Why? Security!

True, Alex a genius, but why would one post new updates every week when there is really no major bugs in the program? Over one weekend, 4 new releases came out for UBB! That's crazy. I paid top dollars for a program that has updates every week on bugs in previous versions and sometimes security problems. I would have to update my forum versions more than I can have time to post to them.

To Alex, you are doing a great job. Keep up the good work!

PS, I am still trying to save up money for the new SQL version. I can wait to get it. Smile

--
http://techdevelopers.addr.com
Future site of techdevelopers.com


[This message has been edited by XanthisHP (edited June 26, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
rajani wrote:
Quote:
This four BASIC functions needs to be in the routines of Links.

I respectfully disagree. Smile (how's that for not throwing stones?)

For you these 4 additions would greatly increase the functionality of the script. For me, they would do little and would perhaps get in my way.

I do not require password protection on modify, and many of us do not. With all due respect to Bobsie (and indeed a great deal is due) I don't like his password protection mod one bit. It would mean my users had to type more before they could modify their resource rather than less, and I'm interested in making less work for the end-user. That's much more important to me than password protection.

I have never had a situation in which I needed URL-blocking or banning, and such a feature would be of no use to me. I have no use for a banner script, and such a feature would beef up the script with no benefit to me (or to many users!). And although I've installed several copies of links, I've only had use for the Multiple Category mod in one of them. Most people don't use that mod. On the scripts where I don't need it, it would add a large block of useless clutter to the admin panel.

You see, the thing is that what makes great added functionality in your project may be useless or even a burden to others. Which is why everyone here keeps saying that the great thing about the script is that it's extensible and customizable to fit different purposes. Your purposes for this script are vastly different from mine. The additions you see as essential are rather useless to me.

You sound as if you're telling some universal truth... "The script NEEDS such-and-such." It's not universal.

Phoenix

[This message has been edited by phoenix (edited June 26, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
I just wanted to add my quick two cents about Alex's scripts...They RULE!

They are the only scripts on the market that allow cross-platform portability. I have had tremendous problems configuring other PERL scripts that are not very NT friendly.
Alex's scripts addresses this problem in a very efficient and professional manner.

Also these scripts allow more FUNCTIONALITY than any other scripts on the market. The scripts have THOUSANDS of APPLICATIONS. Many other PERL scripts are restrictive in their application.

What I would like to see in future releases of Alex's scripts (including LINKS) is:

1) Comprehensive NT Installation Guide. (This would assist those NT administrators and developers who are struggling with setting up and maintaining PERL programs.)
2) Toggle switches in web based admin forms that would set-up scripts faster and easier.
3) More template files.

In terms of administrating the scripts on the road, I would recommend running shell telnet sessions. Bobsie has pointed out in other forums that shell programs are faster and more efficient than strictly relying on web browser administration.

Regarding the push for supporting corporation and businesses...I would really caution Alex that if he chooses to market larger organizations and corporate entities that he does not alienate previous customers and users of his scripts. I have seen a deadly trend in this industry of small software and application development companies moving away from marketing and supporting smaller organizations to corporations. (As a result, they have alienated their current customers and users.) I could name examples, but in order to be politically correct, I choose not to name them.

Keep up the great work, Alex.

------------------
Eliot Lee
Founder and Editor
Anthro TECH, L.L.C
http://www.anthrotech.com/
info@anthrotech.com
==========================
Coconino Community College
http://www.coco.cc.az.us/
Web Technology
Coordinator
elee@coco.cc.az.us

[This message has been edited by Eliot (edited June 26, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hello Phoenix!

Quote:
It would be nice to have the category listing set up in a template, but I don't much care. Actually, I don't look forward to a new release... yikes, too much work!

Hey, man, tell me now I am curious. What does this "Category listing in the template mean"? Has it something to do with the manner how they are represented, or? By the way I really liked your support the way you have been participating in this forum especially the modification area.

After reading the post from XanthisHP gave me the idea about the Security feature that Website Sol asked for. Man, now I am thinking about Links SQL security features. Thats very interesting that I did not notice about. Smile Smile Smile HEY! Smile Smile Smile

Links SQL has definitions files for the SQL Database. All this database files have a password for the access of the data. This means that "No one can access". This means that things like What Mr. Xanthis described will never happen, true Alex?

Yes, Phoenix, I agree that its a real big pain to re-work on the scripts with updates.

------------------
rajani











Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hello Phoenix!

Thanks for your nice feedback.

You see, you are an experienced user and I am not. This is exactly what I am talking about.

Lets say, there is a switch to insert 0 or 1 for a basic function to use it or not. Would not be nice. Or a total different packet of script set is there for advanced users like you, then person can use this basic, what I call, and even noww truely beleive, functions without getting in the the risk and the fear of how to make it all work. Its done, its there and it works.

I am seeing it, ofcourse more from a starter point of view and not from an advanced user point of view like you. You are having a lot of knowledge of Perl but me not.

Question is, the need is there. One coustoumizes. When there is any update palnned of a new version or an upgrade, its a big pain. Therefore if it is from the central source, it has less problem. The question is of the possibility. Profis like you may use the functions in a different way and starters like me would be different.

By updates one does not talk about bugs, but new feautures.

BanURLs, if this feature is there is not harming at all. Now if thats not there, one discusses. One can simply put a 0 or 1 in a bracket to activite or de-activate a function.

Thanks

------------------
rajani











Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
rajani,

I don't have time right now for a complete reply, but before I head off to work I just wanted to comment that I'm not an experienced user at all. I've installed very few PERL scripts, and I've never modified any code at all before links. I am learning a lot over the past few months since I found Links, though. (I hope!)

Smile
Phoenix
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
 
Quote:
Links SQL has definitions files for the SQL Database. All this database files have a password for the access of the data. This means that "No one can access". This means that things like What Mr. Xanthis described will never happen, true Alex?

I don't know about the SQL version yet, because I haven't got my hands on a copy yet. Anyway, if you are using the non SQL version, it can happen. People cannot see my directories. If they tried to access them, they get an error message. If they knew the direct location, that is, the full url to the .db files, they can easily obtain the db files. Not only harm your email.db, but what about copying an exact replication of your links.db.

There is no way to protect my CGI scripts on a NT, so I had to protect it using CGI protection. Since the .db are not cgi executables, they aren't protected. People can easily open them like an ordinary text file. That's the main reason I moved to UNIX to take advantage of .htaccess. I'll just have to wait until Mircrosoft make a good version of NT and focuses on security over the net.

My NT server is located half way around the world in Denmark. I don't have full access to any of it's resources therefore I cannot protect my files from the control panel that I am hearing about over at www.32bit.com forums.
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hello!

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











Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Alex,

Personally I've never been that worried about the password protection on modify. The reason that particular mod has interested me is the ability to call up the resource data from the database so that the user doesn't have to type the whole thing over again... only change the parts that need it. I don't like to ask the end-user to do any more work that absolutely necessary. They are more likely to help me keep my database fresh if they don't have to do a lot of work for it. So calling up the information to be modified is the addition I'd like to see in a future release, with or without password protection, I don't care.

Another feature I'd like to see added is giving the end-user or link owner the abiltiy to request link deletion. I'd like that to pass through Validate and let the admin decide to delete or keep the record with the click of a button as the admin can now accept or reject additions and modifications.

It would be nice to have the category listing set up in a template, but I don't much care. Actually, I don't look forward to a new release... yikes, too much work! Smile

Phoenix
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
 
Quote:
The discussion is simply an opinion on this democratic forum

Correct!
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hello XanathisHP!

Quote:

I don't know about the SQL version yet, because I haven't got my hands on a copy yet. Anyway, if you are using the non SQL version, it can happen. People cannot see my directories. If they tried to access them, they get an error message. If they knew the
direct location, that is, the full url to the .db files, they can easily obtain the db files. Not only harm your email.db, but what about copying an exact replication of your links.db.

Hey man, what you are doing are really very interesting thing, which is new to me. Ofcourse that going a bit out of the topic of the thread but not the forum. I have no idea about discussion in the past here and have not looked or searched. But still like to ask you this interesting thing you are doing out of curiosity. Or am I misunderstanding?

So, how are you hiding the directories? By a redirect.cgi? Thats one thing I can thing of writing location of URLs and then transfering to anathor location. I do not know about such a script or if at all this is possible. How do you manage?

In the SQL scripts, I beleive, should be most or all, it is the script which "Logs-in" with a given password. It uses a MySQL driver or a module and logs into the database like a telnet session. So its quite secure. Moreover, there are different password possibilities, full access, write only and read only access of the database. May I say here that this is MySQL feature and not of the Links SQL(Hopefully not wrong).


------------------
rajani











Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Wow, this is a cool thread - a real pi**ing contest, if I ever saw one Smile Someone must have struck a nerve - or had a lot of nerve.

I can't add much that hasn't already been said, except...

I think I'm a pretty average type of webmaster. I was doing my links page using raw HTML, with the help of my favorite editor HomeSite 4.0. The problem was, ever time I wanted to add a new link, I ended up spending 15 minutes fiddling around, cutting-n-pasting, et cetera, with the HTML file. So, I looked for something better.

Also, our users and visitors are lazy and wouldn't take the trouble to e-mail their links suggestions to us. I think most people prefer to just form-n-submit, like they're used to on guestbooks, message boards, et cetera. So, we wanted a program that did this.

After looking at everything we could get our hands on, and trying out several varieties, we came up with two clear winners - DCLinks98 and Gossamer Threads Links 2.0.

We anguished over which one to use. DCLinks98 pretty much fit the bill, but Oh, that Gossamer Threads Links 2.0 was just too irresistable. DCLinks98 was up and running in an hour or so. Gossamer Threads Links 2.0 took a little longer. Then we found the templates section on Gossamer Threads. That did it...

After trying 4-5 different interfaces, we settled on the Snap interface. It looks very good on our site with suitable color changes and so forth. All told, we spent a pretty intense 48 hours setting up the Snap interface, to our liking, but it was well worth it.

It looks pretty, works great, people are adding links, the admin feature is a snap (no pun intended) and it's 1000% better than what we were doing before.

So, I guess this is my way of saying thanks to Alex for making such a great, highly configurable and customizable product. We pride ourselves on finding the simplest but most fuctional products available. To wit, we use RobPoll for our polling feature, RobBoard for our message board, Ultimate Guestbook for - you know - and Gossamer Threads Links 2.0 for our links page. To our way of thinking, these are the best products for the average webmaster to setup and run and the easiest products for our visitors to use.

Some people find it curious that we openly despise Madrona Park's UBB program, but use and promote their Ultimate Guestbook program. But, that's the way it is, and that's another conversation Smile

So, anyway, keep up the good work Alex, and don't let us cry babies get you down. You have the best links program on the web, for too many reasons to comment on here. If it wasn't the best, we wouldn't be using it, right?

------------------
Lenon.com Homepage
www.lenon.com
------------------
Lenon.com Links Page
See our "Snap Interfaced"
Gossamer Threads Links v.2.0
www.lenon.com/links/pages
------------------







Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
  
Quote:
So, how are you hiding the directories? By a redirect.cgi? Thats one thing I can thing of writing location of URLs and then transfering to anathor location. I do not know about such a script or if at all this is possible. How do you manage?

My site is hosted on a NT server in Denmark. I have no adminstration access over it here in Atlanta, GA. They guys there made a 403 access protetion when trying to see the content of a directory. The directory still exists, but cannot be seen. You must know the full url. As long as person knows where each file is located, they can get it. Still they cannot access my admin.cgi and other cgi scripts since I protected them, but my data files are not locked. I think that maybe the best way is to change the data files to be renamed as email.cgi and links.cgi. That way, when a person tries to access them, they will try to execute. This is what the UBB boards does for the Members directory. That means, you would have to search all of the scripts for any referrers to email.db and change them to email.cgi. Most likely you probably will miss one and it will cause problems.

I sometimes hate hotbot search engine. It spiders entire cgi directories if not protected, like my NT server cgi-bin. If you did a search for email.db, you would definitely get good results that harvesters are wanting. Do it now, and I bet you that you will find email.db on the first 10 hits. If not, I'll shut my site down Smile

There's no excuse as to protect your cgi scripts and not your data files. If I wanted, I could easily do a full replication on sites that have their scripts protected, but not their data files. It just shows how powerful a UNIX server can be. Ignorant people will post over and over for password protection their scripts.

--
http://www.techdevelopers.com
ASP, HTML, CGI, Flash, and more!

[This message has been edited by XanthisHP (edited June 26, 1999).]
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
I agree with the spirit of the first post. It's not a criticism, but a wishlist out of some frustration -- and looking to the future and seeing a dark tunnle, not the light.

I have hacked links to no end, and my only fear is I *KNOW* I need the SQL version, and will any of the mods carry over?? What happens when 3.0 is released, and it works "better", so I *want* to upgrade, but may not be able to.

The purpose of "mods" when thought of as patches, is to add functionality, *should* be incorporated into the next release so that everyone who installed them, is covered. (Especially when the mods are somewhat supported by the program site).

The mods are adding functionality people want, if it's not there already.

This is different from mods that change the way the program works for a specific site (ex: templates).

Mods such as the Nested Ifs, and 3-new levels, and things like that, that don't affect the BASIC function of the program, but add functionality that can be used, ignored, or turned on/off should be incorporated.

Also, the programmer should bear in mind the various mods people have used, and try to make sure his program will still allow them, or if it doesn't, have a very good alternative.

I don't think ANYONE is criticising Alex. This program is awesome-- considering it's "free" (meaning you can really use it, try it out, get help, and make it work before paying for it)

I for one would like Links 3.0 to be a complete re-write, even if it doesn't add any features, just to smooth out, modularize, and make the code/templates more logical.

Links "grew". Competition today can clone it using it's success, and avoiding it's failures.

The biggest program with Links, is *NOT* any feature, or missing item -- it's the source files themselves.

Make them easier to follow, and understand, perhaps a FAST CGI version, and the program will have moved up more than a notch.


Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Jeeez! Et tu, Links Forums? How tragic!

For those who are unaware who Website Solution really is -- please click the link below:

http://www.dabuzz.net/Sol-Sucks/

By the by, I consider the Links script a great investment. For others -- who want free scripts that will not only install themselves, but which will then debug themselves, customize themselves without infringing on anyone else's copyrights, and in short run an entire site with no time or effort invested by the site's owner (who apparently doesn't have the know-how to complete a site, much less make one successful) -- I suppose Links might present a problem.
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Me too, I agree.

Hubba, Hubba, Hubba I'm a happy boy 'cause I'm the Son of Sol!

Links is Kewl!!!
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Who is this crazy Son of Sol?
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Hey!

Look at this kewl link.

http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=moron&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dabuzz.net%2FSol-Sucks%2F

------------------
Quote Reply
Re: Links 3.0 In reply to
Does anyone know where JimZ has gone? His email and site are not working.

Also, he is the only one that posted that he or anyone else has a script that emulates DMOZ. All other posts here talk about taking files from DMOZ but not creating an editor based program like DMOZ (without buying the sql version of links). Is there anyone that has such a software package?

Quote Reply
Re: [bbwbhmfa] Links 3.0 In reply to
Anyone know if Links 3.0 is in the works? Or is 2.0 the end and the future is the SQL version?

Just ever so curious :)
Quote Reply
Re: [DanJ] Links 3.0 In reply to
Links 3.0 is Links SQL 1.0, IMHO. Alex has only made a few (minor) updates to Links 2.0 in the 3+ years since it's release.

--Philip
Links 2.0 moderator
Quote Reply
Re: [sponge] Links 3.0 In reply to
Ya we noticed! Its too bad and can't afford sql ver. oh well back to the drawing board.
rexxx webmaster
Quote Reply
Re: [rexxx] Links 3.0 In reply to
One thing you could do is contact GT and see if you qualify for a discount, like if you are a non for profit or educational organization.

And also think of it this way, the amount of time and resources you'd spend customizing Links 2.0 further would be way more in monetary investment than upgrading your Links 2.0 script to Links SQL.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: [dearnet] Links 3.0 In reply to
Is there a links 3.0 expected anytime soon ?
>> Nakul Goyal (SEO, Link Building Expert)
Web Site Promotion
Tips 'n' Tricks
SEO News


Quote Reply
Re: [nakulgoyal] Links 3.0 In reply to
Aside from security patches, no. For all intents and purposes, the first version of Links SQL was Links 3.0. Don't let the price tag scare you because Alex/GT can work with you to make it affordable. And trust me as a veteran Links 2.0 user, you'll find maintaining your site and customizing your installation much easier with Links SQL than Links 2.0.

Philip
------------------
Limecat is not pleased.
Quote Reply
Re: [dearnet] Links 3.0 In reply to
Hi all!
Many of You got point in Your posts here. BUT isn't it too much preshure for Alex. We should rather say BIG BIG THANKS to Alex, because with Links v2.0 many of my dreams come true and if Alex was so kind to offer us this beautiful script for free why we sholdn't spend some time to improve it or add some extra mods to it. It would be nice to have something perfect, but there is so many of us with so many different wishes and we cant be all satisfied for free.

Soooo Alex Big Thanx from me, and what ever comes with new version I will again say THANKS just because I know how much time it takes to write some codes and if it's free what else cuold I say Wink!!!
Bosnian Links
Quote Reply
Re: [bihlink] Links 3.0 In reply to
and with Links2.0 available for free for non commercial use, it's GOLD.
>> Nakul Goyal (SEO, Link Building Expert)
Web Site Promotion
Tips 'n' Tricks
SEO News