content management systems (CMS): are they still so bad?

[urlwolf]

http://www.gerrymcgo...t_2003_03_03_cms.htm

Content management software hasn't worked because it was badly designed and massively over-hyped. Software companies lied about their products, charging criminal prices for crap software. It hasn't worked because organizations didn't understand content. They wanted a quick fix. They issued specifications that bore little relation to what they actually needed.

THis agrees with the thread at DC, where people who spend many hours evaluating all the fancy OSS for CMS (and some paid ones) ended up sorely dissapointed.

Is this the status quo? Maybe WP is the only think you need to do a decent site nowadays (with so many plugins, you can approximate what other CMS do, and it's dead easy to use)...

[mwb1100]

What does WP stand for?

[Dormouse]

Is this the status quo?

-urlwolf (January 21, 2008, 01:22 PM)

How can it be the status quo when it is March 03, 2003 - ie nearly 5 years ago?

[Dormouse]

What does WP stand for?

-mwb1100 (January 21, 2008, 03:34 PM)

WordPress, I assume.

[urlwolf]

Yes, I want to know IF this 2003 article still makes sense today.
Mouser (and lots of others) have spent quite a lot of time reading about/testing CMSs and most of them are dissapointed.
WP= wordpress

[Dormouse]

I've tried many of the free CMS systems out there, but this article is actually about something completely different. Commercial systems individually rewritten or tweaked for each customer and costing an absolute fortune.

The development of these corporate systems is much more advanced now than 5 years ago.

The open source free systems discussed in the DC thread have also moved on a lot from 5 years ago, though not that much since that thread. I don't think you can usefully duplicate the functionality of a CMS using WordPress. A CMS allows a the use of a single database for a variety of uses on a site. It is not usually a problem to integrate static pages and menus into the site if that is what you want. Nor is it usually a problem to have a very individual design or theme. However, you do have to go with the bulk of the community and not add too many hacks, otherwise you can get stuck every time the main CMS core is upgraded. You also have to hope the community sticks together or transfer to another CMS (and that can require a fair knowledge of mySQL if no-one creates a conversion for you). The fallout between SMF and Joomla and the loss of the Bridge caused quite a few problems for a lot of people.

I find a CMS gives a lot more flexibility in designing a site than trying to add bits to a Forum or any other component. OTOH, if what you really want is a forum or a blog, then it is best to go with that.

[wilfrednilsen]

So I understand you are not happy with the CMS engines, but can you please be a bit more specific as to what you think is missing or could be better?

The company I work for is releasing a CMS with the next version of our home and business computer. The idea is that you run your own site on your own computer.

The CMS does not have all the bells and whistles typically found in larger CMS applications, but is instead focusing on being easy to use – i.e. a CMS for the average Joe (non techie).

I like to know more about what features you think is important for a CMS.
The CMS we are working on is a combined site creator and blog engine. WP for example, is more designed to be a blog engine and may not be so good at creating a regular web site.

If you have time, please visit our demo site and the product page. Any feedback is appreciated. BTW, you do not have access to the management part of the CMS.

http://barracudadrive.net/
http://barracudaserv...rracudaDrive/cms.lsp


The server also includes a forum, but the forum is a separate application and not integrated into the CMS i.e. the applications do not share the same database file.

[Renegade]

In a commercial environment when deciding to create a web site, I would instantly fire anyone who suggested writing the web site from scratch. My reason would be that they are simply too stupid to live, reproduce, and that I was shocked that they had enough brain power to breathe. (Pet peeve of mine here...)

For a very few web sites (the Amazons of the world), you need to write from scratch with a large focus on architecture and scalability, but for 99.99999999999% of web sites out there, a CMS is THE answer.

The free ones have come so far along now that they are used by the likes of Texas Instruments, the US military, and a lot of very large web sites.

The simple act of writing a GOOD authentication system is a substantial effort. Why do that when you can get it for free from people that are better than you?

The point to the CMSes, like DNN, out there is that you have a good framework and can customize from there.

i.e. Do not reinvent the wheel!

[Renegade]

But do you need such software? Most companies don't. I know organizations that are successfully running massive websites with Microsoft FrontPage. They can do this because they have excellent editors and writers, and because they have well-defined, well-policed publishing processes and policies.

Totally missing the point. Just because I can shape fecal matter and freeze it into some make-shift skiis doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Everyone that runs a web site with more than just a couple pages should manage how the site works and organizes itself.

While he's right about the 'crapware' that so many companies pimp out to customers, he seems like he hasn't used anything that actually works. They exist. I use them.

We've just finished moving from altools.net to altools.com. That includes moving well over 10,000 pages and all the content there.

Now... Try moving 10,000 pages created with FrontPage that sit in flat files and completely redo all the design for them all. I'd shoot myself in the head if I needed to do that.

Using a CMS facilitates a future for a site. Oh bother. I'm just ranting! Shut up and go do something else Ryan! Ok. Bye.

[Rover]

CMS's were a lot crappy 1.5 -2 years ago.  Most have gotten much better recently.

I have used Joomla to build a few sites and it is excellent.  It has so many possibilities, the only real down side is the learning curve.  There are 100's of plug-ins available to do  just about anything you want.  It even integrates with Mantis.

It's not perfect, but it is easily extend-able and well supported.

[tranglos]

Are there any CMS-es (or other solutions) for mostly static sites? I need s consistent look of the pages (that I design), so ideally 2-3 templates that get filled with content, and some variables or chunks of text I can define to reuse pieces of content (headers and footers, but also repetitive info like, say, name and version of a program).

I've looked at many CMS systems and tried some, and most of what they do I don't need: calendars, forums, subscriptions, group editing, shoutboxes, polls, wikis, I need none of that I might use RSS, that's about it. I've just had enough of editing a few dozen pages manually and keeping them in sync.

Has to be free and LAMP-friendly - where P is preferably PHP or Python.

I've tried Smarty (php), but even that seems too complex, or at least a brief skim through the docs wasn't sufficient to figure out how to use it. (It appears to compile pages, I don't think I want that.)