Free PHP Scripts |
|
|
The idea of this website is about sharing PHP scripts, website development related information and links about what useful is out there.
Feel free to submit new stories or scripts, rate or comment on them.
You can also submit post in the discussion forums. There are forums related to php development, website design and content management systems.
We would be more then glad to hear your comments.
|
|
|
|
|
| Browse one of the categories above for PHP scripts |
|
|
Search fares well in sluggish economy
Published on 08 February 2010 16:00
|
At times I get the feeling the content technologies aren't affected by the economic downturn. Some of the vendors we cover have come out with early reports on their performance over 2009, and so far the news is good.
For instance, French vendor Exalead proudly claims $22.7M in revenue, and 50 new customers. Canadian vendor Coveo isn't quite as open about the financial specifics, but notes 37 deals with new and existing customers in Q4 alone. I'll accept that there's at least some truth in the "record Q4 2009 results" and "significant growth" the company announced. (Though you can never be certain, even with publicly traded companies -- which Coveo is not.)
Then there's Autonomy, which has now branched out way beyond the pure enterprise search business. However, the English company's strategy still revolves around the IDOL search technology, so for good measure, let's add in their figures too: revenues of $740 million, up 47% from 2008, "including strong organic growth of 16%." And a staggering $323 million profit before tax, up 55% from 2008. Many stock traders may not know much about enterprise search, but they'll certainly know about LSE: AU.L.
Of course, this is just scattered evidence, and I wouldn't dare say that all of the vendors we cover in our Search & Information Access Research are breaking records in revenues or profit. (If only because companies that aren't doing so well aren't going to announce their figures with great fanfare.)
But it illustrates the sense I had this past year: that many of these products continue to be in high demand, and the content technologies are doing a lot better than the economy at large. At the beginning of 2009, we could still dismiss this as a delayed effect (projects already set in motion before the crunch hit), but evidently enterprise search continues to grow against the tide, at least for another year.
I can think of many reasons why this would be the case. (Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments below.) I believe the principal reason is that for many enterprises, search and information access technologies have become either just a cost of doing business (much as you wouldn't turn off the electricity in a shop when sales are slow), or a means to increase efficiency and get an edge over the competition (because unlike electricity, you can get better search). It's not something you cut corners on.
So even though the core technologies have been around for several decades, I tend to think this shows that there's still a lot of untapped potential for search in the enterprise. If you still think of search as a simple commodity, you might want to rethink -- you're being overtaken left and right.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
ROI calculations are a joke
Published on 08 February 2010 16:00
|
Our colleagues over at Forrester recently undertook some interesting research regarding content management investment attitudes in 2010 (DM, RM and WCM). The overall finding was along the lines one might expect, "72% of respondents intend to expand their use of ECM technologies"... but there was an intriguing second key conclusion in the report: "49% could not estimate the ROI for any of their ECM systems."
Let me state my take on ROI calculations as clearly as I can. ROI calculations for information technology are junk calculations, a fraud, a nonsense, and a complete waste of time. Clear enough for you? Oh and by the way, ROI calculations from software vendors are even worse...
ROI assessments are based on the simplistic formula of benefits minus costs to calculate the return on your investment. But simple is not always smart, and most if not all the of the benefits in such calculations are by nature predictive. In other words they are guesses, and in my experience, almost always overly optimistic -- and fatuous guesses at that.
There is a cost to any new system, and there is also always a return (sometimes a good one, sometimes bad, often a bit of both) from the system. Far better and more honest I believe to just build a valid business case that details these costs and potential returns, and utilize more concrete and verifiable calculations such as TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) or CDB (Cost of Doing Business). That way you have a business case that details the investment and what you hope and expect to achieve as a result, and at least have a business case based on facts. One that when it strays into the predictive (as it must at times) is clear about its limitations and values.
The industry analyst guru's guru, Paul Strassman, has written extensively on this topic. For those who want to know more about the pointlessness of ROI calculations, I highly recommend you read Paul's bestselling book, "The Squandered Computer", a work that IMHO should be on the required reading list for any IT or Business related degree course.
But to return to the Forrester research findings, I would respectfully argue that they asked the wrong question. For rather than asking buyers of content technologies whether they can build a valid ROI for new investments, they could have been asked whether they believed new investments in content technology would deliver worthwhile benefits. The results from that would have been very interesting indeed, and I suspect quite different from the question that was asked.
Just like writing an RFP, developing a solid business case can be detailed and tricky work - and it is work that we help our advisory clients with on a daily basis. But in essence it is the core purpose of our work: we help buyers make the right and best technology investments possible. Yet over the years I have seen so many nonsensical ROI calculations, so many works of fiction claiming to be business cases, and so many buyers misled by farcical ROI calculations, that the very sight of those three letters is enough to make my blood boil...
Read more...
(0)
|
|
An iPad for DM and RM?
Published on 05 February 2010 16:00
|
The launch of Apple's iPad last week has caught the imagination of armchair critics worldwide:
"What's it for?"
"What a funny name (snigger snigger)"
"It's just a big iPhone"
And so on. But whether the Apple device itself is a success or not, we seem to be approaching a tipping point for improved user interfaces to manage documents.
Be it the Kindle, Tablet, Snook, or iPad, keyboardless document reader devices are on the verge of becoming mainstream -- at least for consumers. For browsing and reading through large volumes of files, or large documents containing multiple pages (books and libraries), such devices are infinitely more user friendly than the current desktop or laptop paradigm.
Take that one step further and it is logical to reach the conclusion that such devices might work well for reading through airliner maintenance manuals, consulting documentary evidence in court, searching archives, or accessing a patient's medical records and images? So while the pundits mock the iPad, I see real potential here for the world of case, document and records management. That said, I already own too many Apple devices, and may have just drunk too much Apple-flavored Kool Aid. But surely it can only be time before some enterprising vendor starts to deliver secure organizational and access applications for these devices.
I for one wish them luck, for as somebody who has spent his career digging through virtual crates, accessing electronic files that I then need to print to actually read, I know for sure that there has to be a better way.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
Alterian drops Immediacy
Published on 04 February 2010 20:00
|
Software vendor Alterian has cleared up which Web CMS software it wants to try to sell you in the future. In short, all of their alphabet soups going forward will taste like Morello.
The U.K.-based vendor will be dropping the "Content Manager Corporate" edition product (CMC, formerly known as Immediacy) and concentrate its WCM efforts on the Enterprise Edition (CME, formerly Mediasurface Morello). The company expects to release "CM7" this fall as a successor to both CME and CMC, but this will really be an updated CME, not an integration of CME and CMC.
Readers of our Web CMS Research will know that when Alterian bought Mediasurface, the company was juggling three systems, ranging from
Hosted Pepperio
.NET and page-based Immediacy
Java/.NET object-oriented Morello
Pepperio quickly found a new home. But two distinct, full-blown WCM solutions is still a lot to carry (just ask Open Text).
Alterian would much rather focus on providing a one-stop online marketing solution, so rallying around a single WCM tool as part of that broader package makes a lot of sense -- for the vendor.
For customers, it's a different story. No doubt CME/Morello users will be happy to see Alterian focus on that system, which -- like all the tools we cover -- has had its fair share of problems. On the other hand, Alterian says it will support CMC/Immediacy "indefinitely," but the "upgrade" to CM7 will really be a wholesale migration. (Alterian promises scripts to ease the transition.) Current CMC customers and integrators will have to get up to speed on a new system that is architecturally completely different. Custom plugins won't work anymore, and the move from a page-based system to objects and fragments is far from trivial -- for authors as well as developers.
If you're currently looking for a CMS, it's probably fair to say that Alterian's soon-to-be defunct CMC should drop off your shortlist. If you want a system like CMC/Immediacy -- that is to say, page-based and .NET -- you should probably consider Ektron, EPiServer, or Kentico instead. If you want to place a larger bet with Alterian, then your option is now simplified to CME. Just don't forget, that's a Mid-Range Platform, and a lot more complex than a Simpler Product.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
Non-disclosure is a non-starter
Published on 04 February 2010 16:00
|
We've mentioned this a time or two before, but in recent dealings with a well-known WCM and DAM vendor there seemed to be some confusion about it, so perhaps it bears discussing one more time.
We have a policy at CMS Watch of not signing NDAs with the vendors we evaluate. Nondisclosure agreements are antithetical to what we do; fundamentally, we're in the disclosure business. We perform research and then reveal what we've learned. We're not in the business of keeping vendors' secrets.
We do, on the other hand, honor news embargoes. Commonly, a vendor will have a new-product announcement that carries a specific go-live date. The go-live date might be a week in the future, but the press release is written and the vendor wants to show it to us. As long as the embargo period is reasonable, that's fine. We'll agree (verbally) to look at the press release and not write about it for publication ahead of the embargo date. We do that sort of thing all the time.
NDAs are a different beast. An NDA is a legal contract. NDAs typically carry all kinds of fine print that inhibit disclosure in various ways even after the information in question has entered the public domain. Vendors sometimes choose the NDA mechanism to share with analysts when the information in question involves business strategy or an acquisition. Public corporations in particular have to be very careful about how they disclose certain kinds of information. We don't want to be a party to those kinds of disclosures. We want to be free to explain to you the customer whatever we need to say, based on the research findings we dig up.
So if you're a vendor, please don't ask us to sign an NDA. We understand the need for secrecy on certain matters, but in that case, please keep it to yourself, and don't brief us on what you don't want made known. From a buyer's perspective, a real demo is worth a thousand words anyway...
Read more...
(0)
|
|
The trouble with DAM and your corporate laptops
Published on 04 February 2010 16:00
|
The net-wide discussion over the Apple iPad's lack of Adobe Flash support has brought back a few memories for me: ones in which DAM tools with sexy Flash interfaces can't run in large, corporate locked-down environments, where there's restrictions against downloading just about anything (such as a special plug-in, or the latest version of Flash) to a corporate machine.
As we wrote about last year and cover extensively in our Digital & Media Asset Management Research, many DAM tools have refreshed their UIs in the last year, while other DAM vendors have continuously promised they will but still haven't released. Those interfaces are largely Flash, Flex, or AJAX-based, and definitely make DAM interfaces look like they belong in the 21st century.
That doesn't mean they're perfect. In the past several months, while assisting three Fortune 500 companies with their DAM procurements, I've watched the excitement in a potential buyer's eyes when they see a well-designed, fluid interface that's Flash or AJAX-driven, only to be followed by dismay when they realize they can't run the tool because of their locked down corporate machine.
It's something that often gets brazenly ignored by a vendor during a demo. The vendor may know that an entire corporation is still running Windows XP and the enterprise standard is still Internet Explorer 6, and a 2-year-old version of Flash, but that won't stop them from showing you something that's designed for IE 8+ with the latest version of Flash.
When you go to procure a new DAM package, be sure to include your enterprise OS and browser standards in your RFP. Your current corporate standards may well hold you back from investing in the latest, most feature-rich, and fully-supported version of a software product. (This can also prevent existing customers from upgrading.) So now is also a good time to start pushing for a re-visit of those standards -- and an upgrade to something more modern where needed.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
How Does Your Portal Expose its Services?
Published on 04 February 2010 12:00
|
Enterprises have traditionally used portal technology to aggregate content and functionality from different applications. In that sense, portals have typically been consumers of services.
Nevertheless, despite what vendors may tell you, it's very rare that a single portal instance becomes the only place where you access all your enterprise information. Most enterprises support multiple portals (or delivery environments) in an organization, and so a single portal server becomes just one component of the enterprise technology landscape.
This means that any portal must not only consume services but also expose its own services in a manner that other components of your enterprise architecture can consume.
Why would you want to do that? Well, many enterprise portal software products have services or functionality that could work well across your enterprise (i.e., not just within the portal). As an example, you might want to use a portal's in-built search engine to be able to index your Web CMS or you might want to use your portal's wiki services more broadly across your intranet.
Of course there may be licensing implications here, but in general you get the idea: de-coupling a portal service so that you can "white label" it or extend its functionality to suit a different environment.
How do you do this? For starters, you can choose among many standard integration mechanisms to integrate portal services with other applications. Among others, you can use Web Services, iFrames, Web Clipping, directly access a Portal's data source, or employ an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) to access the relevant functionality. All of these have their drawbacks and are typically very complex to implement, especially if you want to access a "service" rather than just a "page."
Other approaches are potentially promising. The Oasis standard, Web Services for Remote Portlets (WSRP), provides a mechanism to expose portlets to other delivery engines. However, while many portal tools can consume WSRP, they do not often comply with WSRP for exposing their own functionality.
Some portal products now expose their services using simpler mechanisms like REST-based APIs, which provide a URI-based way to access a specific feature or subset of a functionality For example, you could obtain a list of top 10 blog posts using a URL from a portal's built-in blogging engine.
The other alternative that some vendors have implemented is the ability to expose every portlet as a "gadget" that you can then include in another web page using simple JavaScript.
As you can see, there are many ways of exposing a Portal's functionality and I'll not go into all the details in a short blog post. Obviously you face trade-offs, as some of these approaches are more complex than others, while some are more presentation-oriented than others.
So if you're evaluating portal products, make sure to understand how the product exposes its services and not just how it consumes services from other applications. We delve into the pros and cons of these different approaches -- and how each vendor covers them -- in our Portals research.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
Vendor Tip: perform some basic research before disqualifying prospects
Published on 03 February 2010 16:00
|
Our job here is to advise buyers of technology, never vendors. But today I am going to make an exception and give the vendors out there a solid tip.
Do your homework before responding to RFPs.
Now that we have search tools like Bing and Google, ten minutes desk research can return a lot of information. If you receive an RFI or RFP from a firm you have not previously worked with, then it makes good sense to check them out and get a feel for their structure, size, and potential long-term needs.
I only mention this as recently one of our clients received a (belated) response to an RFP from a very well known vendor, one that essentially whined about the thoroughness of the buyer's procurement process, and (not very subtly) implied the buyer could not really afford their products anyway.
In fact the buyer is a sophisticated organization with advanced requirements, one that can more than afford the product. On paper at least, that vendor offered an excellent fit. Rather than asking the buyer to justify themselves, a quick bit of desk research to qualify them would have done the job. But one lazy and somewhat insulting e-mail later, this particular vendor now likely lost all hope of landing what could have been a very nice deal indeed.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
Many Portal Products Getting Refreshed
Published on 02 February 2010 16:00
|
Last week we released some significant updates to our Enterprise Portals Research. The latest research reflects significant changes among new versions of several portal platforms, as well as additional details for all the products we cover.
Our research we found the market in a particularly unusual state. Buyers should exercise particular caution as many portal software vendors are significantly updating their software. You can read more about the market’s state of limbo in the press release. As our Cross-Check below illustrates, IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft, along with open source options, are all at an overhaul and refresh stage.
Click to enlarge
IT Executives who are procuring a new portal solution typically do not want to be the first to deploy brand new software. Rather, they prefer a product that has somewhat matured. With so many major vendors in transition, the market has entered a kind of limbo phase.
Our research also found a healthy open source market (almost half of the portal products we cover are open source). We also track some new technical developments, such as whether and how different portal tools integrate with other applications as both consumers and producers of services. If you are not currently a subscriber, you can download a free sample here.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
SAP to resell EMC Documentum
Published on 02 February 2010 16:00
|
Last week SAP announced that it would begin reselling EMC Documentum products to the Insurance and Finance industries. It's not a world-shaking announcement, but it is interesting for one simple reason: buyers in those sectors now have a choice. Whereas previously they would have only had the choice of Open Text (SAP's preferred partner), now they can opt for Documentum.
It's worth pointing out that theoretically, SAP customers have always had options other than Open Text, insofar as every major document management vendor markets a connector to SAP, typically for many years now. But when Open Text is the only document management and archiving option on the SAP price list, and is actively sold by SAP reps, then it created the misimpression of "Open Text or nothing."
So moving forward buyers in these sectors have a choice, and choices are a good thing. You have more leverage to negotiate and more chance of finding the right fit. OK, so it's only one other vendor, but when the choice previously was something (Open Text) or nothing, any choice is surely better than none.
Read more...
(0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44)
Fresh updates on PHP related scripts.
|
|
(1112)
News that are related to Content Management Systems.
|
|
(59)
Templates that can be used for Websites and also using Content Management Systems...
|
|
(2434)
Website hosting companies which are tuned to run Content Management Systems...
|
|
(69)
Resources for website contents...
|
|
(148)
RSS Feeds which can be uses to provice content for your website.
|
|
(333)
Graphics is an important aspect in website design and CMS...
|
|
(11)
Find out how to make your website a success...
|
|
(35)
Talk about the development of web applications, scripts, tools and content management systems...
|
|
(101)
Tools for webmasters that will make your life easier...
|
|
(80)
What every website designer needs to know about HTML to make attractive web pages.
|
|
