Quoting Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 09:30 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote: > > Robert Cummings wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 23:40 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote: > > > > I doubt they were stupid enough to shell out that kind of cash to on a > php-nuke install, > > > > > > Why not? It's not the code they want, it's the traffic. You can have the > > > best code in the world and if 0 people visit it, it's pretty worthless > > > to anyone but you. > > > > you are right - I was implicitly thinking along the lines that there is no > > way in hell a php-nuke install could stand up to amount of > requests/processing > > youtube must cope with. > > Definitely not on one computer, but if you offload to say 30 servers, > you can probably process 100 million hits per day. Servers are probably > cheap compared to their bandwidth costs. > > > there is a good reason that properties like Yahoo (which uses php of > course) stick all > > the heavy lifting code in php extensions written in C. > > True, but nothing stopping a site like youtube from taking a shoddy app > and moving some of the heavy lifting into extensions themselves. > > > then there is the issue of differentiation - would *you* settle for some > generic POS > > piece of software if you had billions of dollar to invest in build a > custom, killer app? > > Probably not, but I know that millions of people everyday settle for > Microsoft ;) Some of these people probably have a few spare billion > dollars... not me though :| > > > okay, sure, everything in software land is eventually comoditized and > available as > > open source eventually, but right now there are no google-video type > applications out > > there that can handle the amount of traffic the mentioned sites handle. > > Id on't think the code is the bottleneck, I think the bottle neck is the > 200 to 400 terabytes of data youtube transfers everyday. > > > there is also the premise that youtube wouldn't be youtube if it were > running on php-nuke, > > for the simple fact it would have been hacked to death. no? > > Well, that's definitely a valid point, no argument from me there heheh. > > Cheers, > Rob. > -- > .------------------------------------------------------------. > | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | > :------------------------------------------------------------: > | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | > | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | > | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | > | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | > | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | > `------------------------------------------------------------' > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > Thanks everyone. By the way I wasn't implying that any of these sites are being run on php-nuke, I was wondering if they're however running on something similar to php-nuke. Just because you tube, google video, break.com and a few other sites all basically look the same and function the same way, so I thought they might be using the same backend code. I'm making a small site for a community that wants the same idea, I was wondering if it's as easy as installing a software, or that I have to write it all from scratch. Thanks again for all your responses. Siavash -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
