>Lastly my thoughts on a replacement for Freenet Forever. I do not >support the index. I can't stand the tacky name. I can't stand the yellow >and black colour scheme and most of all I can't stand the non-standard
>size of the active links used. It's 95 x 32 for god sake! 1) The name is irrelevant - if you don't like the name feel free to suggest something else. I am a tech geek, not a design geek - I make things that work not that look pretty. 2) Black on white and white on black is boring - suggest a color scheme you like and if it is beter then what I have (which wont take much) I'll change over to it. While your at it, instead of complaining, why not throw together some html you think would look good for for TII (or what ever you decide it should be called). See my previous comment for why the html is simple. 3) The activelinks at 95x32 are entirely too small. 190x64 is great because it is completely backwards compatible (as it maintains the same aspect ratio) and is even nearly completely forward compatible. Even if authors decide to not "upgrade" to the new size their activelink still shows up, you can tell what it is, and it does exactly what an activelink's job is - propagates site keys. I want to see larger activelinks and apparently so do other freesite developers as they have "upgraded" to the new size on their own. >I have heard that 'The Slander Man' is working on a automated version >of TFE. Might be worth keeping an eye out for that. You can complain about how much TII sucks all you want but replacing TFE with a completely automated TFE still won't solve the root problem of having every available freesite listed on one page. That solution simply will not scale. Any TFE like solution (we will call it a flat page) is going to have to break up the freesites by content and put them on seperate pages (otherwise you still have a flat page and loading a complete page of activelinks still will take way too long). Guess what - you have TII all over again, however it is all run by one person so it still has a single point of failure. How does TII solve this problem? It is much easier to have redudent index indexs as the number of index sites will be (pull number out of ass) 1/50th the number of total freesites. When it comes to redudency, it is much easier for people to deal with keeping links to 50 freesites rather then hundreds and hundreds that the network will eventualy have. At the very least, maintaining the list of index sites does not require automation of any kind and is even within the realm of cluebies. Decentrilization is good, centrlization is bad unless there is an overwelming reason to design something that way. -- FLOG
