Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Gallery 2.0 Released

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the pretty-pictures dept.

Programming 224

uss_valiant writes "From the Gallery website: "We are incredibly pleased to announce the release of Gallery 2.0! Over three years of design and development have gone into creating the best online photo management product possible. Gallery 2.0 is the natural successor to Gallery 1, and we hope that you like what you see. Don't wait, download Gallery 2 now!" From a developers point of view, the Gallery 2 framework is particularly interesting because it's written with modern programming patterns (OOP, extreme programming, test driven development, MVC, factories, modularity, ...) in mind which is rather unusual for PHP based projects. Over 1500 unit tests ensure correct functionality and its architecture is really impressive."

cancel ×

224 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uhm, been running on my server for months.... (0)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551634)

The article is a bit misleading, since Gallery2 has been available for sometime and has been stable enough for all but the most critical applications...

Re:Uhm, been running on my server for months.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551688)

No, it's not a single bit misleading. "Gallery 2.0 Released" it was released last night right before mid night PST.

You've been running betas or RCs

Re:Uhm, been running on my server for months.... (4, Insightful)

yelvington (8169) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551880)

Gallery2 is free software developed with the "release early, release often" philosophy, so of course it's been available for some time. But it's also been a moving target in terms of filesystem layout and API. Emerging from beta is NOT a small deal. It means that developers of add-ons can proceed with some confidence that the entire system won't turn to smoke with the next dot release.

I've been using it in a high-volume production environment since April Fool's Day. We plan on dumping it next week and moving to our own code. It's a very nice system (and a tremendous leap forward from Gallery 1), but it's wedded to a folder organizational metaphor, and we need a richer taxonomy to support potentially tens of thousands of users.

Re:Uhm, been running on my server for months.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552517)

Yeah, running a gay-pron site is pretty tough.

fp who cares (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551640)

fp who cares

EEEEEEEEE!!! (1)

GET THE FACTS! (850779) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551641)

EEEEEEEE!!!

Gallery 2.0 is the natural successor to Gallery 1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551651)

The number of the next gallery shalt be two. Thou shalt not proceed to Three, nor shalt thou regress to 1, unless it it procedeth by two.

uhh ohh (-1, Troll)

danheskett (178529) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551656)

"extreme programming"

Thanks, but no.

Re:uhh ohh (-1, Offtopic)

verbatim (18390) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551711)

But it's just programming... TO THE EXTREME!!!

Extreme Programming at Wikipedia (2, Informative)

jfroot (455025) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551730)

Wikipedia explains what Extreme Programming is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Programming [wikipedia.org]

Re:Extreme Programming at Wikipedia (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551770)

I brushed against Xtreme programming a couple of years ago - what's the difference between that and bottom-up design, with more customer feedback?

(BTW, I'm asking because I tend to be wary of the latest buzzwords in the industry, because they obscure the legitimate breakthroughs.)

Re:Extreme Programming at Wikipedia (1)

dubl-u (51156) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552427)

It has a nubmber of additional practices. The most important are probably test-driven development, refactoring, regular iterations (ideally, one week) and frequent releases.

Re:Extreme Programming at Wikipedia (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552649)

Sounds like that mindset can go hand in hand with Lisp:)

http://paulgraham.com/lisp.html [paulgraham.com]

Do Xtremers have any particular choice of language?

Karma Whoring at Wikipedia (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552164)

Wikipedia explains what Karma Whoring is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_whoring [wikipedia.org]

Re:uhh ohh (3, Insightful)

msaver (907214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551848)

Yeah -- but it uses OOP! *cutting edge technology* It sound awesome... orienting objects and whatnot.

But my favorite part is the bit about "test driven development." Of course it's test-driven... that's how programming generally works.

And Zonk... please tell me what the program is before telling me to "Clickey here! Download Now!". I'm not really looking for online photo management software at the moment, thank you.

Re:uhh ohh (1)

Sinus0idal (546109) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551994)

Hmmm gallery, what COULD it be.

Re:uhh ohh (1)

vmardian (321592) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552006)

But my favorite part is the bit about "test driven development." Of course it's test-driven... that's how programming generally works.

Test driven development means the unit test is written at the same time as the feature is written, or sometimes even before the feature is written.

FYI (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551658)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_Project [wikipedia.org]

The Gallery Project is an open source PHP project enabling simple management and publication of photographs and other digital media through a PHP-enabled Apache or IIS web server. Photo management includes automatic thumbnails, resizing, rotation, and flipping, among other things. Albums can be organized hierarchically and individually controlled by administrators or privileged users.

paid press release on /.? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551659)

You decide. Looks like it to me.

Re:paid press release on /.? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551697)

For some of us, this is like the release of phpBB 3. We've been needing the features this release has for months and even years and we're excited that it is finally ready for production.

So whatever, man....

Re:paid press release on /.? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551897)

Dammit, stop teasing me with the release of phpBB3...

Re:paid press release on /.? (1, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551724)

A paid press release for free software? What the hell would they have to gain from that?

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551660)

First post!

fp! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551661)

fp!

+5 Insightful! (5, Insightful)

h0bbel (105687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551666)

RC1 was codenamed +5 Insightful, how nice :)

Well, that's lovely but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551670)

Well, that's all lovely and good, but don't bother using it on an ISP unless you can find a way to get the image tools installed correctly, in exactly the right places, with the proper permissions.

Re:Well, that's lovely but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551790)

Get a clue nitwit. Upload the binaries to a location under your account that apache can access and chmod them to 755. Then tell Gallery where they are at.

Re:Well, that's lovely but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552175)

Check your facts dipstick, in general the binaries you need aren't easy tome come by. If you want to dispute that, show me the link.

Re:Well, that's lovely but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552221)

Use your head and ask some questions. You can then turn left or right and get away from that brick wall you keep bumping your head into.

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group _id=7130&package_id=14464 [sourceforge.net]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jhead&btnG=Go ogle+Search [google.com]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=imagemagi ck&btnG=Search [google.com]

Extreme programming? (0, Flamebait)

Morinaka (874174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551690)

If they had used extreme programming wouldn't it have been done alot quicker than 3 years? Or are they saying they just had some all-nighters.

Re:Extreme programming? (1)

ribo-bailey (724061) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551767)

Is that with, or without, the 'E' ?

Gallery (3, Insightful)

Saiyaman (859809) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551701)

I have been using the Beta of 2 for Gallery for a while. I love it. It is great if you want to share photos with friends after a fun night partying. Also allows your friends to upload pictures if they are so inclined.

Re:Gallery (5, Informative)

Scooter (8281) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551926)

I agree - I had used Gallery 1.3.x for years and it was "OK", but was a pain to permission up, and stored all the images below the doc-root, so it was trivial to bypass the security anyway.

All of this has now been fixed, with a robust user/group model with a permission "tree" ("view all sizes" implies "view full size" and "view thumbnail" for example), and the images stored in a dedicated data directory outside of the web server doc-root. They've also fixed that annoying "feature" of 1.x.x where it would output image URLs with the explicit host name used during the install. This meant for my old gallery, that all the image URLs were prefixed with my internal host name for the server, so you got no images when browsing it from outside (unless you had a real non-proxied connection to the Intarweb and could edit the local hosts file :P ) It no longer gets it's knickers in a twist and corrupts it's own config file either (although I suspect this only happened on certain combinations of PHP and Apache)

Gallery 2 demonstrates the ease of use of a mature project. Upgrading within 1.x.x release used to be a bit of a chore, but after unpacking Gallery 2 to a new virtual server, a couple of MySQL commands to create and permissiona new database, all I had to do was browse to the new server, and tell it where the data was for the old gallery and it just got on with it. Detected all the image tools and preserved all the comments and metadata.

The "help n fill" on the local server paths is a bit spooky, but handy. The upload options are comprehensive, even supporting Xo's "publish to Internet" function, although I can't really reccomend that - it's very slow. The best option is to use Gallery Remote - a swing app that lets you just drag images, or folders or zip files of images onto it to upload to your gallery.

It even acts as a shop, letting your customers select images to buy from smaller versions and then making them a handy zip archive for checkout time.

Now I don't have to bother emailing pictures to family and friends - I just made them a user id each, created some groups, permissioned up the albums (and it supports inheritence too for permissions) and mailed people the link :)

Fantastic job guys.

Re:Gallery (1)

Matt_R (23461) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552579)

I've been using Gallery since the early v1.4's, and have found it very suitable for my needs.

G2 is a big step forward compared with G1. I've been running G2 since the beta was first released, and while I noticed a few bugs in the early betas (that's what beta versions are for after all..) the more recent versions have been really good.

Yes, you need an SQL server for this version, but for those of us running our own servers, that isnt really a huge problem. It certainly makes things much easier (I've had corrupted db files in gallery1 that were a huge pain - I couldn't delete an empty album!)

Any other ways to see it (2, Insightful)

staticdragon (95211) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551709)

Anyone have an alternate link or a server thats running it since the site is borked?

Does it still contain built-in spam ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551713)

I helped someone install gallery over a year ago, and to my disappointment some of the pages on it re-directed to some spamish link farm. Mostly mistyped urls going into gallery, like leaving off a slash at the end of some urls, I think.

Is that still in there ?

Not from my experience (1)

lullabud (679893) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551953)

I've been using G2 since beta 2. There were 4 beta's and an RC, iirc. I've never seen anything like spam redirections, but then, I wasn't accessing it from Windows... =P G2 is great.

Re:Not from my experience (2, Informative)

uss_valiant (760602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552181)

G2 has nothing like spam redirects or such things built-in. Search the source...
Users who have reported "weird" redirects (you may be the third), always had a misconfigured webserver, which made their Firefox use the built-in (FF) google "I feel lucky" feature. So if you give your webserver a weird name and misconfigure the webserver, you end up on a I feel lucky hit from google for that search term.

Gallery vs. JAlbum vs. ??? (2, Informative)

banglogic (702448) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551717)

I have been using JAlbum [jalbum.net] for my photo album projects for quite some time now. I like it pretty well and there are a lot of templates out there for it. I'm not crazy about it though. I checked earlier versions of Gallery a while back but I didn't care for the look of the UI and the webpages it created. Anybody try this new version of Gallery yet? Any other free web albums you guys would recommend?

Re:Gallery vs. JAlbum vs. ??? (2, Interesting)

Titanium Angel (557780) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551779)

Since the functionality is completely separated from display, you can use its easy to customize templating system to completely adapt its look to your needs. I've been using it for a few months, and I must say I'm impressed. Seems to be the best photo gallery in town :)

Re:Gallery vs. JAlbum vs. ??? (1)

Arathrael (742381) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551872)

I spent a while looking at various photo galleries a while ago and couldn't find a single one I was happy with.

The main problem is that I'd like to have one photo in multiple albums. I know that was on the requested features for Gallery - anyone know if it made it into this release? (I can't check with the website not responding).

I'd also like one that doesn't arbitrarily use the terms 'album', 'collection', 'category', etc., in strange and bizarre ways. They're the same bloody thing! (in that they're all ultimately a collection of photos by some theme).

One that lets me use keywords for dynamic tagging and displaying of photos would be nice. Especially if it will let me just select keywords already used rather than typing them every time (that always goes horribly wrong since you typically end up referring to one thing in different ways, especially if there's more than one person uploading pictures).

I suspect I might end up writing my own, but if anyone can save me the trouble by pointing me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. :-)

Re:Gallery vs. JAlbum vs. ??? (2, Informative)

Titanium Angel (557780) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551973)

You can definitely have a photo in multiple albums in G2. They're called linked items or something similar. There are only albums and items in Gallery. There is a root album that can contain an arbitrary number of subalbums and items. Items can be photos, movies, or anything else a plugin is available for. Some have even added support for audio items.

Regarding your complaints about keywords, they can be added to items and searched for, but there is still a lot to be done in this area. AFAIK, the next version should support functionality similar to Flickr - e.g. albums generated on the fly based on keywords.

Re:Gallery vs. JAlbum vs. ??? (1)

Arathrael (742381) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552154)

Thanks for the information. I'll definitely check out the linked items feature. Well, when the site starts working again I will. :-)

Re:Gallery vs. JAlbum vs. ??? (1)

HeelToe (615905) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552257)

Are you more interested in a dynamic website (a la Gallery FTA) or an up-front generated static html + pictures directory tree? I've written the latter for myself, and though it has not been worked on in a while, I've been looking to do a rewrite and major overhaul/enhancement this winter. If you're more interested in pre-generating html, I definitely could use some help with this project.

JAlbum vs InAlbum ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551921)

I love InAlbum http://www.inalbum.com/ [inalbum.com] !

PHP != Crap Code (4, Interesting)

ilkahn (6642) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551726)

I have often remarked that a "Writing Maintainable Enterprise Class Systems in PHP" book would be the best thing since sliced bread for the PHP community. There is nothing so wrong with the language and the environment (although some have likened it to training wheels without the bycicle) that can't be remedied with discipline, communication, and the use of mindful quality software development discipline.

PHP has been a wonderful language in which to "put together quick solutions which grow into large projects" for me in fields from accounting to my current work in Industrial / Manufacturing! The interfaces you can write to control PLCs and generate plant floor intelligence using *good* PHP and a web server are light years beyond what is usually available on a shop floor with PanelViews and Vorne displays (Light bars...) Someone out there would be smart to write a PHP-for-software-engineering book.

Re:PHP != Crap Code (2, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551807)

The problem is, when those small projects become big projects, they usually need to be completely rewritten from scratch because the small projects were not written with maintainability in mind.

This is the primary problem with languages like PHP. There is *NO* structure to them, no type strictness, no standard practices. ASP (original) suffered from the same problems.

JSP and ASP.NET have a lot better structure to them, and standard practices, not to mention tools that follow them.

Re:PHP != Crap Code (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551891)

I've found that the lack of structure to some PHP programs can be beneficial; you can write a one-off program, then refine it piece by piece into usable code. But, that said, I have some system design experience in C++ and Java, so I tend to structure my code a lot more logically than some people.

Re:PHP != Crap Code (3, Interesting)

ilkahn (6642) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551916)

I guess that's sort of the point I wanted to make, is that with some foresight and proper discipline, those small projects, when they become big projects, don't need to be rewritten from scratch, if maintainability was in mind from day one. Take PEAR::DB or one of the more advanced O/R mapping PHP frameworks (such as Propel), throw a decent templating system on there (such as Smarty), keep your code highly cohesive and loosely coupled, and the benefits of the language and the libraries are *massive*.

I spent 4-5 years trying to get JSP to work as a "rapid development prototype to full scale application" environment, and I constantly ran into issues with Tomcat, Jasper, JAR file surprises, all of the warts that come with the Java language, etc... I switched to PHP for all "non-transactional" code when I did a study whereby I analyzed the amount of time it took one of my teams to react to "changing customer requirements" utilizing PHP/Apache as opposed to how much time it took another team of mine to react to similar requirement changes using JSP/Tomcat. I am not saying that JSP couldn't have worked, it's just that it seemed to not really have as many benefits as I would have liked for an environment that required as much agility as that which I found myself in.

I have to admit, my experience with ASP is nearly nill, as I have not been able to convince any clients to allow me to test out MS platforms controlling plant floor hardware.

All that being said, when my company writes something that requires "transactional integrity", we do pick Java for the backend... it's just that those situations in my field really are few and far between.

Re:PHP != Crap Code (5, Interesting)

NickV (30252) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552236)

You're comparing a decent templating engine (Smarty) with crap Java technology (JSPs.) Most modern Java programmers disdain JSPs and use other, better templating technologies. Try using Velocity [apache.org] . Requires no recompiling when you make changes and is a very very easy templating language that provides an amazing amount of power (you literally can drop items into a hashtable of VelocityContexts and then access them by using "$" notation... such as "$user.name") If you want something that will really rock your world, check out JSF [jcp.org] or Tapestry [apache.org] (it turns web programming into writing an event-driven application, like desktop apps.)

The problem with most PHP applications is that they don't scale. I don't mean that in a "PHP SUXORS! YOU CAN'T WRITE S$!@ IN IT"... I mean that most PHP applications aren't built with any real caching implementations (like this gallery software, or phpbb, or nuke, etc...) and the PHP frameworks that I looked at don't really provide that functionality.

The stuff availble for Java is just so much more powerful. You have the Hibernate [hibernate.org] OR mapping package that provides an amazing amount of OR work for you, including the ability to plug in multiple transactional caches, session caches, database connection pools (including the ability to have clustered caches across multiple boxes.) You have complex messaging architectures to talk to and keep multiple machines in sync. You have great web service APIs and great search engines that can be plugged in. Stuff to that degree just doesn't exist for PHP.

It often shocks me to see so many "Enterprise Level" PHP apps released with no caching implementation... you shouldn't see ANY home page hit a database on every hit. (And yes, you can easily avoid stale content by eviction, injection routines.)

So yes, you can definitely write decent stuff in PHP. But for the highly scalable enterprise environment, the libraries and packages that exist for Java and ASP just don't exist.

The other thing I hate about PHP is that there just is no IDE that is of the caliber of Eclipse for PHP (and PHPEclipse just ain't there yet.) A professional IDE allows me to introspect objects, trace stacks, change variables on the fly per hit and control each thread individually. This kind of power makes debugging and performance testing so much easier and more powerful than a PHP app. Good luck trying to seriously profile a PHP app...

So yea, PHP has it's place. It's wonderful for quick one-offs. I just wouldn't want to code a massive user load, transactional, high availability, multiple machine cluster application on it.

Re:PHP != Crap Code (1)

ngunton (460215) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552704)

FYI, You don't need caching to be a part of the application server. Just make sure you generate good expiration times for your pages, and then use a reverse proxy front-end server. The proxy will cache requests, and pass new ones to the backend. I use this with great results on mod_perl, with a lightweight apache front end on the same machine for the reverse proxy.

Aye, this is what the buzzwords are for (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551909)

I've done the what-ever-it-takes-to-get-something-online style PHP work for a year or so now, and have always wanted a mature, nicely-designed codebase to look at (NOT osCommerce!)

I think it's be good for intermediate PHP developers to know that Gallery2 is ... whatcha call it .. "real software"

ZE == Crap Runtime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552201)

PHP is slow as shit, it's not the right tool for large projects. PHP5 adds some language improvements and 5.1 improves on speed a little (function call overhead is now acceptable) but APC still isn't working! Devs should be targetting bytecode for a third party JITable VM with PHP6, not just adding native unicode support.

Well it didn't start off as a rant but the gallery site is dead, that's what happens when you get a few thousand requests making shitloads of database queries from a bloated runtime. Gallery, "it's got all the right buzzwords but dies under load", great engineering job guys, now go lookup what caching is all about.

I'm not really this much of an asshole, honest. Check out luajit [luaforge.net] if you haven't already.

Marketing (2, Funny)

gunpowda (825571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551735)

Gallery 2.0 is the natural successor to Gallery 1...

Of course, it were a Microsoft product, the natural successor would be 'Gallery Super Uber Ultimate Edition'.

Re:Marketing (2, Funny)

mblase (200735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551950)

Of course, it were a Microsoft product, the natural successor would be 'Gallery Super Uber Ultimate Edition'.

You sure you're not thinking of the "Street Fighter" series?

And if it were a Java Product... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552231)

...it would be called Gallery 5!

Re:Marketing (1)

Pneuma ROCKS (906002) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552301)

How about 'Vista Gallery'? Oh, wait...

buzzwords check passed (4, Funny)

tonigonenstein (912347) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551747)

OOP, extreme programming, test driven development, MVC, factories, modularity

Re:buzzwords check passed (1)

DiarmuidBourke (910868) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552156)

OOP: pass
extreme programming: pass
test driven development: pass
MVC: pass
factories: pass
modularity: pass /.'ing: fail

Re:buzzwords check passed (1)

DiarmuidBourke (910868) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552349)

Theres a line break after "modularity: pass" and before "/.'ing: fail".
*I must learn to use the preview button*.

What the fuck is Gallery (0, Troll)

mrpotato (97715) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551753)

Why should I care more about how it was developped than what's the end product?

Announcing some software based on what process was used isn't informative at all.

Nope, Not offtopic!! Re:What the fuck is Gallery (1)

redwoodtree (136298) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551823)

This is not offtopic at all. I'm sitting here trying to get to the site, it's /.'ed and though I was able to get it to load without the images, all it talked about was the different versions and its development.

Doing a quick google search for gallery 1.0 or 2.0 leads to nothing immediately informative.

So, what the fuck is gallery!?

Re:Nope, Not offtopic!! Re:What the fuck is Galler (2, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551876)

Try the second sentence of the article summary?

Re:Nope, Not offtopic!! Re:What the fuck is Galler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551883)

There is a, admittedly very obscure, reference to Gallery being "the best online photo management product possible" hidden in the article.

What could it be? Hmmm, let's see...yeah! It's really the code-name for the beta release of Duke Nukem Forever! :rolleyes:

NOWW!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551816)

"Don't wait, download Gallery 2 now!" For the sake of all that is good and holy DOWNLAOD IT NOW!!!!! You must not delay another second! Stop reading and slashdot the web server!!!!

How are the Debian packages? (2, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551831)

Hey, has anyone tried out the Debian gallery2 package? Does it do a good job of migrating the data, or does it install stand-beside? I have a gallery 1 installation that my whole family uses, and I'd like to know if it's safe to upgrade, or if I should wait for the bugs to be worked out.

Re:How are the Debian packages? (1)

h0bbel (105687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551844)

as far as I know, it installs it besides G1 and you then use the G1->G2 migration module to import your existing install.

Re:How are the Debian packages? (1)

Scooter (8281) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551962)

..and it doesn't modify your old Gallery install/data, so you have nothing to lose. It did mine without a hitch!

Re:How are the Debian packages? (4, Informative)

BacOs (33082) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552204)

I'm the Debian package maintainer for both gallery1 and gallery2. The gallery2 package is completely separate from the gallery1 package - you can install/use both simultaneously if you wish. Using the gallery2 migration module, you can migrate from Gallery 1 to Gallery2.

FWIW, I uploaded version 2.0-1 of the Debian gallery2 package this afternoon - it should be available in Debian unstable as of this afternoon's archive run.

Buzzwords (1, Redundant)

Monx (742514) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551840)

Oooh. Buzzword compliance is the first thing I look for in photo management software.

Big deal. (0, Troll)

oGMo (379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551852)

From a developers point of view, the Gallery 2 framework is particularly interesting because it's written with modern programming patterns (OOP, extreme programming, test driven development, MVC, factories, modularity, ...) in mind

How is this interesting? So you've got the toys and the buzzwords. Does it solve a problem? This doesn't say a word about macrodesign. Is the overall model elegant? That's the important part. The rest are just some really nice hammers and screwdrivers. They don't automatically make a good building.

which is rather unusual for PHP based projects.

So is this the interesting bit? "We made something that uses a lot of modern stuff, we did it in PHP, and it took us 3 years". Big deal?

Over 1500 unit tests ensure correct functionality

Ah unit tests. First off, 1500 isn't very many. Secondly, as much as I love them, they only test what you thought of. They're a great tool, but they don't ensure correct anything: they just make sure that when you add something, you don't break something else. As long as you thought of "something else".

and its architecture is really impressive.

That's nice. How?

Re:Big deal. (2, Funny)

g0sub (582599) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551935)

No no no - the _other_ foot. You were supposed to get up on the _other_ foot.

I've just finished creating the worlds first working fusion reactor, but hey, whats the fuzz - others have thought of it before me.

Re:Big deal. (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552083)

I've just finished creating the worlds first working fusion reactor, but hey, whats the fuzz - others have thought of it before me.

So you think an app that maintains a photo gallery is something that hasn't been done a few times [freshmeat.net] ? Possibly on every known platform, in every known language, for every known format, both offline and online?

But I see how one might confuse it with a technological breakthrough on the order of a new energy source.

Re:Big deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13551982)

you're a dick.

Re:Big deal. (0, Troll)

Tassach (137772) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552008)

I've been using gallery for a while to manage my family photo album. For a vanity site like mine, it's massive overkill; and from what I've seen, it really doesn't scale very well on the high end.

This past weekend I cranked out a 66 line bash script that reproduces about 90% of the functionality from Gallery that I actually use. If I really feel I need the other 10% I'll do a little more hacking.

Re:Big deal. (1)

Titanium Angel (557780) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552093)

It is true that Gallery 1 doesn't scale well, but this isn't so with G2. It has been designed with scalability in mind, so it should theoretically scale to millions of images. The largest I've seen myself is used by an image hosting company, and there are a little less than a million pictures in it, and it still works beautifully. You can read an in-depth comparison of Gallery 1 and 2 on this [gallery2.org] page.

Re:Big deal. (3, Interesting)

DataPath (1111) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552061)

unit tests don't just show that your program works, they show that your program STILL works (make great regression tests)

Re:Big deal. (1)

oGMo (379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552105)

Precisely. This is very helpful. Everyone should do it. But they should do it knowing what they represent. (It should go without saying that you need to write good tests, and if you forget to test something, you're not covered.)

Unit Test 1501 (4, Funny)

TimCrider (215456) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551875)

Slashdot Effect [ FAILED ]

Can it manage photos of your server on fire? (1)

joelparker (586428) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551918)

Anyone have a cache or alternate download page?

Working download link (4, Informative)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551957)

Since the gallery.menalto-site seems to be slashdotted already here's a working download link at least, directly from sourceforge.net: gallery 2.0 file list [sourceforge.net]

the new site runs Drupal (2, Informative)

bkessels (796275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13551979)

For those interested. Gallery is the next big one in line to move its site to drupal [drupal.org]

Re:the new site runs Drupal (1)

bkessels (796275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552067)

well, i /meant/ to say: "/was/ the next big site", since obviously, it already moved. But /. does not let me change my comments, so it seems. (Drupal does)

Database required? Are you nuts? (0, Flamebait)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552039)

From the requirements page [menalto.com] :
Database (Gallery 2 only) - MySQL 3.x or 4.x, PostgreSQL 7.x, Oracle 9i or 10g (Gallery 1.x does NOT require a database)
Are you fucking kidding me? A database is required? Not optional if you don't want a few features, but required? I have to create another database user with yet another password just to display some pictures with thumbnails? Since I'd be using Gallery 1 because of this ridiculous requirement I have to ask, is Gallery 1 going to continue to be supported?

Re:Database required? Are you nuts? (1)

h0bbel (105687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552062)

Yes, Gallery 1 is still supported and under further development.

top three favorite features (3, Informative)

jackstack (618328) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552071)

  1. Upload a huge honking zip file of compressed images and create an album
  2. Integrated "Publish to Your-Special-Gallery" from WindowsXP "My Pictures" folder
  3. Easy to customize permissions
This (along with gnump3d) are my two FAVORITE web apps for linux.

Gallery Local, a smart client for Gallery (2, Informative)

anglete (782289) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552096)

Try out Gallery Local [sourceforge.net] , a smart client for gallery.

It allows viewing of your gallery offline. It takes advantage of the new XML-RPC routines available in Gallery 2.

Darnet!!! (1)

Praedon (707326) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552148)

Stop Slashdotting the server so I can download something! : )

My Gallery (2, Interesting)

jelevy01 (574941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552161)

If anyone cares here is my gallery: http://pics.jeremylevy.com/ [jeremylevy.com]

Re:My Gallery (1)

jelevy01 (574941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552226)

Hmm, on second thought, posting a link to my gallery on slashdot might not have been the smartest thing i've done today...

Re:My Gallery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552299)

pwn3d!!

oh crap, i posted mine also

Re:My Gallery (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552360)

I found your "secret" folder by the way. You might want to put a password on those pictures of your tiny cock.

Upgrading? (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552177)

I run Gallery 1.x on my site [elitemrp.net] . Since the gallery site is currently slashdotted, does anyone know if its easy to upgrade from 1.x to 2.x or should I just stick with 1.x (which seems to suit my needs just fine as it is)

In case it makes a difference: My gallery is on a hosting providers server, not my own. I have SSH access though.

Re:Upgrading? (1)

BacOs (33082) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552320)

Gallery 2 has a migration module that allows you to import pictures from Gallery 1 into Gallery 2.

Re:Upgrading? (1)

Zerbey (15536) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552479)

It's easy as pie, but can take a while depending on the size of your gallery and speed of the server (took about 15 minutes for my creaky old dual PIIIs to convert several thousand pictures). I did this in one of the early betas and it worked absolutely fine so you should be fine!

3 years? I think not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13552362)

You spent those three years figuring out what you wanted to make.

Admit I have no idea about the scope of this project (didn't rtfa), but i'm sure a couple of guys could whip up something similar in a month of their spare time.

Give me a break. (4, Interesting)

saberworks (267163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552402)

If this is an example of good PHP coding someone please shoot me. They use their own internal "require_once" instead of simply using ini_set to set the include directories correctly. They name all their included files *.inc and *.class which can be a severe security issue if these files are available from the web root (which by default they are).

From the code I saw, everything is extremely over-engineered (read: too freaking complicated). It looks like they have some input sanitization functions but they aren't used consistently.

The coding style throughout isn't consistent (but who cares?).

On the plus side, they have used PHPDOC or some similar syntax to document their classes and functions (makes for good API docs). They have used external libraries for some things like templating and database abstraction (can't say much for their choices but at least they didn't rewrite those from scratch).

The error handling also looks particularly nightmarish:
if ($ret->isError()) {
return array($ret->wrap(__FILE__, __LINE__), null);
}
(repeated 12 times in one 100 line file!!!!)

Safe mode (2, Informative)

doctela (889621) | more than 8 years ago | (#13552550)

One of the problems with Gallery 1 was that it would not run with PHP's safe mode, which is often used in shared web hosting. Does Gallery 2 also have this restriction? (The site's still slashdotted.) There are other PHP-based photo gallery solutions that do not have this restriction, such as Coppermine http://coppermine-gallery.net/index.php [coppermine-gallery.net] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>