You may need to ‘sET IP’ first on Testnet 19 … then go back and chose Alpha 2… your IP set on Test 19 will then apply to invite on Alpha 2
Are you referring to the limit on the number of puts each user gets on the Alpha 2 network?
If so, it’s because of malicious users filling the test networks up with garbage in the past.
@maidsafe A little (late) feedback on the new Web Hosting Manager (0.4.0):
blimey its good
on the options presented after clicking “Create Website”, which are:
a) Use A Template. Create a simple example site.
b) Start from Scratch. Create a new folder to be mapped and upload web files.
c) Choose Existing. Choose a folder which contains index.html
The first option is clear. For b) and c) I was confused and it took me a while (choosing and cancelling) to understand them and work out how to do what I wanted, principally because I was assuming the folders these options refer to were on my machine, whereas they both refer to folders on the network. If you realise that I think they are clear enough, but I think that is not obvious and probably not what newcomers will assume so maybe it would help to clarify this. For example:
b) Start from Scratch. Upload website files to a new folder and map it.
c) Choose Existing. Choose a SAFE folder which already contains index.html
When choosing b) and wanting to upload a folder which contains index.html (and probably subdirectories) one has two options:
- Choose Upload Files and select the contents of a local folder including index.html, other files and any subdirectories. But this doesn’t work if you select any folders because you can only select files, not files and subfolders (if I understand correctly). So you are then likely to…
- Choose _Upload Folder. Given the behaviour of 1) it is undesirable to try this and then find that Upload Folder creates a subfolder within the root folder created by WHM for the upload. I can’t think of a use case for this given we have arrived here having chosen to Create Website, because doing this can’t create a website with a folder mapped to index.html. There’s a potential problem maintaining consistent behaviour here, because in this instance we want to upload the files within the folder, whereas “Upload Folder” could be taken as either upload folder as a subfolder (as indeed it does) or to upload folder contents. So I suggest that for b), the upload options be Upload Folder Contents (which would then not create a subfolder but upload the contents of the selected folder), and Upload Files (which would behave as now, but hopefully at some future date allow selection of folders and files).
I also agree with the comment that it is going to throw people when they choose any of these options and have to scroll down to see the actions. This seems to happen regularly in the new SAFE UI’s for me (e.g. earlier on the Browser Home page, and in authenticator Allow/Deny - both now fixed), because of the convention of having the actions at the bottom, which is fine except where this happens. So one to look out for.
Hope that helps. A bit late so I think some of this feedback, or something similar has already been given, but its the first time I’ve had time to properly consider this part of the UX.
I really miss the private folder that the original demo app had.
Surely it is key to Alpha 2 and if it has been omitted to allow a 3rd party to develop a file manager it is sorely missed.
Have I perhaps missed the boat, am I currently able to upload private files? I hope I am simply being dense
You aren’t being dense. It is technically there, as in the Web Hosting Manage you can upload any kind of files, but obviously it is designed for uploading and publishing websites, and so isn’t a good solution for a cloud storage feature.
Maybe @whiteoutmashups is going to deliver one before long though (SAFE-FS)?
I think MaidSafe would rather leave this to third parties and mainly deliver apps to show the essentials needed for testing, and to help third party developers in the form of example code.
I think for newcomers to come see the basics of uploading private and public files is essential.
I do get your point of 3rd parties and assume this is why it was dropped from the original demo apps but to me it is an important feature and should be provided with Email and Web hosting.
Otherwise hell may just freeze over
I agree, but if somebody else provides it SAFEnetwork is more likely to arrive before that
having files stored across the system is a basic and the foundation of the original concept i first got interested in 6-7 years ago when maidsafe first appeared…
the whole project was to provide non centralised secure storage.
Precisely why I say it should be at the forefront of demonstration applications.
priority 1 in my book, always has been, always will be…
Marketing SAFE simply as an archive - The Ark - without anything for websites, would be powerful. One time payment for permanent storage, is a seductive idea but it needs an app as good as the Web Hosting Manager.
The old was confusing and splitting public and private out perhaps is best but you’re right it is missing - perhaps some easy hack of the Web Hosting Manager can allow it to return??
Set the standard and experience for new eyes. Competitive apps will come in time. Half the experience is currently lost and I am afraid the UX may not deliver that wow moment unless the standard is set by MaidSafe. People are coming to see, best foot forward!
I wonder private data storage, is more important than public. Seeing that enabled with a good usable API would be a big step forward… somewhere there is database integration that I wonder allows clearnet to use SAFE in the background without even being apparent and that then a step from drawing real sites and businesses over. I expect it’s all in the timeline somewhere…
I agree being able to upload and download private files was my favorite thing to do in early testnets because I’m not savvy enough to make sites. I even miss the idea of the markdown editor example that used appendable data before the switch to MD. It was said these would be ported and they may be in time but right now it’s pretty clear these guys will be working on mobile SDK’s so the mobile development side is taken care of so a good trade off I suppose. Then once that’s done and data chains/node aging is up and going that’ll bring more features that we’ll want to play with. But I too hope for a future cloud storage app in the relatively near term.
My job’s mobile phone does not allow me to install applications from unknown sources. Could you release the Android app on the Google Play store please?
That gave me my laugh for the day
would be lovely:
s3 interface to safe backend storage to allow most/all backup systems to use easily
iscsi to caching gateway for safe backend to provide commercial use of storage
this is learning from the amazon model for s3 storage which has worked well, so i would think would be obvious targets?
seek to establish that safe is a fully accepted secure storage facility able to meet a cross section of industries demands for security/resilience/protection allowing wide adoption.
use commercial usage to finance non commercial usage for little or no cost - foc storage
i would hope that most of this would happen over time as a matter of progression and demand, but to establish safe as a ‘grown up’ system i would hope that there will be at least a sensible storage interface built within the safe provided infrastructure to allow testing and basic usage by punters…
the world is desperate for a nice warm FREE home for all those photos of granny and the kids, dads music collection and aunties hen weekend video…!
if safe can wave a nice juicy carrot of free storage the people WILL come…
also provides a MASSIVE PR opp!!!
MAIDSAFE - 100% SECURE FREE STORAGE FOR ALL
who is not going to sign up?
I don’t think MaidSafe would do that at this point in time, because the android apps are very experimental proof-of-concepts. They’re more to help devs start to understand connecting to SAFE from mobile, not as a final product for end users, so no point putting them on app stores yet.