If I understand correctly, you don't want to know if there are modules that can act as an alternative to myTube.
In fact, you want to use MyTube several times on your site. Am I correct?
Hello McDonald,
well Yes!
MyTube clone had created with the name of video and works and also seo.
Greetings. :thumbup:
Hello,
I have a module MyTube, and now I want another module like this,
The idea is to change MyTube by another module for example video ..
Works or not?
Greetings.
Make a new file in the /modules/imblogging/ folder.
Call it rss.php
Put this in it.
How do you get an RSS feed for ImBlogging? I saw there's a blog feed on this site, but when I install the module I can't see any file or setting for it. I've got ImBlogging version 1.
Is it a custom hack?
Open file singlevideo.php and find these 2 lines:
Hi,
I have a small problem :)
I would add this in the title of each video for example:
Ver movie_name Online
I add each video mon View this video online for each video automatically.
Rough that he understood what I mean!
Greetings.
Google translator ;)
in regards to protector 3.41 and 3.5 beta.
the main differences are admin options for the various filters.
and
- added manipulation checker against ftp worms or silent raiders
now this new feature in 3.5
to quote gijoe
Quote:
http://www.viruslist.com/en/weblog?discuss=208187897&return=1
A notify system for such worms via FTP has just been implemented in Protector-3.50.
It checks mtime of XOOPS_ROOT_PATH and mtime/inode of XOOPS_ROOT_PATH/index.php
It works like a noisemaker in banks.
Though it cannot protect any manipulation of your site, you can avoid to scattering such worms from your site by the notifying mail.
Of course, the first priority must be "Keeping the client secure from such worm".
And it might be better "Watching sites by each other" than "Watching a site by myself" if we implement an observing system for servers.
besides, the only way really to test security modules such as this, is to get them tested in a working environment. just because the module is a final version, does not mean it gives you any more protection than a newer beta version, and that it doesn't contain any bugs. security exploits are usually only ever discovered and reported when tested in the field on live sites, and if they aren't tested in the field, then you find the beta's will take a lot longer to become final, and then you can't fully guarantee they are 100% (or as we all know 100% is a myth) efficient. they have to be put through their elements.
to be honest yep, the last 2 releases were using a beta i think.
didn't 3.4 JUST come out of beta as well?
Haven't we all been using a beta this whole time anyway?
I am all about 3.5
true, but to the outside world, using a beta version in such an important area (security) might give the wrong impression.
i dunno.. Gijoes Betas are usually pretty darn stable..
I would hold of from the 3.50 until it is out of beta.
Thank you wuddel
I spotted the 3.41 update - but not the 3.5
taken from GIJoe's Website
Quote:
= CHANGES =
3.41 (2009/11/17)
- fixed some swf/swc files are confused often
- added language files
-- polish_utf8 (thx jagi)
= CHANGES =
3.50 beta (2009/11/17)
- modified filters can be turned on/off by preferences of Protector
- moved filters under filters_disabled/ into filters_byconfig/
- added manipulation checker against ftp worms or silent raiders
Using "noConflict" avoids jQuery clashing with iCMS own javascript code, but writing jQuery again and again, like this:
yes!
that was it!
i remove this var part from 3 block template files of mytabs, and now, ie7 and ie8 shows the tabs as it should!
this is really great!
now, i will put the tracker code to the footer, and then try to kill 2 other ie style problems
regarding the smartpartner scrolling block, i had it on and off together with the mytabs block and it was no different. each of it worked alone but also together in the same site(with ff).
thank you very much!
you can see working mytabs 2.2alpha with icms 112final on ie8 here
edit: woops, it were only 2 files, and: this wont work with 2.1 since in 2.1 there seems to be no var part to remove.