PCT Resources

CSGnet Archive CSG2014
1

[Martin Taylor 2014.07.21.08.11]

    [From Dag Forssell (2014.07.19         08:30

CET)]

    Martin,



    Interesting suggestion.



    I take it that you are suggesting a menu item PUBLIC leading to

a folder
and web page called public.html (similar to

http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/CSGnet.html ) with
sub-folder
called files (similar to

http://www.pctresources.com/CSGnet/Files/)

    Being Public, the web page should feature the ftp address, a

user name
and password so anyone can edit the web page and with full
access to the
subsidiary folder “Files” and the ability to create additional
subdirectories under it for the items you suggest. (I already
provide
links).

    Being public, this page and files will be vulnerable, but that

should not
be an argument for not doing it. Contributors can download the
entire
public section from time to time so it can be restored if some
gets
deleted by accident.

    I do not yet know if this will work, but suspect it does. Can

set this up
in a few days.

    How does this interpretation square with your vision? Other

ideas?

The vision I had was a little different. I imagined on the home page

in the bolded list (by the way, those bolded words don’t act as
links, which I suppose you intend them to do) a two-level list
something like…

PCT Software

   Demos and tutorials

   Running experiments

   Analysis

   Building Control structures (physical and simulated)

   Other

Each of these would link to a page with links to places where the

software could be downloaded, maybe on pctresources.com, maybe on
personal pages for which people had given you the link, maybe on
Dropbox public folders or equivalent. I assume there would not be
the kind of flood of software that characterizes CSGnet postings, so
although it would give you a little work, it would be safest if
people could send you executables, source and documentation for you
to put directly into a pctresources.com repository.

Opening it to the public seems to me rather dangerous, even if it is

passworded, but I suppose there isn’t too much objection to allowing
a contributor to access the folder that contains his/her own
material at the leaf of the tree.

If there is a split according to authorship, I think it should be

deep in the folder structure, probably at the level that contains
the actual code, or in the line of text that includes the link to
the code. Most people are likely to be more interested in finding
software that does what they want than they are in what software a
certain person has written.

That's the outline of what I had imagined. Others may take a

different view.

Martin