Recently I installed phpmotion (www.phpmotion.com), a YouTube clone script. It appeared that it caused the server go down, so I had no other choice than removing it. phpmotion is known by the DreamTeam as a package that causes loads of technical issues. If anyone knows a good alternative to phpmotion, I'd be happy to know.




www.dojodate.com
free martial arts dating

phpmotion has some major flaws in its "siteadmin/tester.php" script which cause infinite loops to occur spawning thousands of processes and causing harm to servers.

the flaw is fairly easily fixed, actually, but still, the design of the "siteadmin/tester.php" script makes me really concerned over the quality of the rest of the code.

but, for those parties interested, here's a really simple quickfix in unified diff format (although honestly, how it's checking for php version is just flawed)

--- tester.php.bad      2007-10-22 06:42:23.000000000 -0700
+++ tester.php  2007-10-22 06:42:36.000000000 -0700
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
 //HEADER SECTION
 
 //check php version
-$cmd = "php -v";
+$cmd = "env - php -v";
 exec("$cmd 2>&1", $output);
     foreach ($output as $outputline) {
        $total = $total.$outputline;

Thanks for the update.

In the meantime I already removed the entire phpmotion installation because I don't want the server to be unhappy. And I am somewhat reluctant to put fixes & stuff because then I'd end up in doing one after the other, and I have no time for that.

Now on the other hand, I am unhappy, because I have no similar alternative package. So if you happen to know of an alternative package, I'd be glad to know.

Thanks.


www.dojodate.com
free martial arts dating

In reply to:

---

Now on the other hand, I am unhappy, because I have no similar alternative package. So if you happen to know of an alternative package, I'd be glad to know.

---

I know what I'm thinking is not really an "alternative package", but I've looked into this situation a bit, and here is my thinking:

Since YouTube already provides a robust "uploading structure" for "free", why not just rely on them for the *uploading* and back-end processing? They have the money and computer power, and they make it available for free, so why not have your users use YouTube (or similar) for *that* before "embedding" that video into your site or uploading the resultant .flv for use on your site?

There are plug-ins available for WordPress (and components for Joomla!), for example, that allow you, or your users, to embed YouTube (and other video sites) videos in your site.

I can envision a "shared server friendly" setup where you just provide the facility to "embedd" YouTube videos in your site. The result "in your site" would be essentially the same but you would not have to store the video, or provide the back-end processing power for handling the videos.

For that matter, why provide the video processing capability (on your bandwidth and with your shared resources) at all when your user can do that processing "off line" and just upload the "ready for display" video. THis is another way of approaching the goal - user posted videos on your site.

This would work well, I'm thinking, and allow you to have a "video" site without having to duplicate the infrastructure for processing video.

Just thinking out loud.

--rlparker