website maker?

[techidave]

is there an easy way to tell what software was used to make a website?  Like if Joomla or Wordpress was used to create it.  I see a lot of fantastic sites but don't know how to tell what was used.

thanks,
Dave

[app103]

Check the page source.

If webmaster hasn't removed it, it may state in a generator meta tag what it is, and what version is running the site.

For example, if it's a Wordpress site, you might find the following in the head of the page:

<meta name="generator" content="WordPress 2.9.2" />

For Joomla, you might find this:

<meta name="generator" content="Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Management" />

[wraith808]

Also, a lot of CMS have the name at the bottom of the page as a (c). Many people remove this, but it's also an easier first option.

[Renegade]

There's a site that tracks a lot of CMSes. Try searching for it.

I use DotNetNuke a lot. Excellent stuff. It's also FAR easier to use than Joomla.

[wraith808]

There's a site that tracks a lot of CMSes. Try searching for it.

-Renegade (May 20, 2010, 07:40 AM)

This sounded interesting, and I tried to google it, but my google-fu failed.  Do you have any other information which might help me to find it?

[Renegade]

There's a site that tracks a lot of CMSes. Try searching for it.

-Renegade (May 20, 2010, 07:40 AM)

This sounded interesting, and I tried to google it, but my google-fu failed.  Do you have any other information which might help me to find it?

-wraith808 (May 20, 2010, 07:49 AM)

http://www.cmsreview.com/

I think that's it. If it's got more than you can count, then that's it.

[techidave]

Check the page source.

If webmaster hasn't removed it, it may state in a generator meta tag what it is, and what version is running the site.

For example, if it's a Wordpress site, you might find the following in the head of the page:

<meta name="generator" content="WordPress 2.9.2" />

For Joomla, you might find this:

<meta name="generator" content="Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Management" />

-app103 (May 20, 2010, 07:06 AM)

Yes, I did find that "generator" in the page source but the problem was it didn't show up on some sites.  I didn't see anything listed for the dc forum in page source.  But I do see it listed down at the bottom of the page. 

[techidave]

Isn't DotNetNuke asp and Joomla is php?  I do not know what the difference is.  I would like something that is easily setup and customizable too.

But this is probably for another thread.

[Renegade]

Isn't DotNetNuke asp and Joomla is php?  I do not know what the difference is.  I would like something that is easily setup and customizable too.

But this is probably for another thread.

-techidave (May 20, 2010, 06:09 PM)

DotNetNuke is ASP.NET and Joomla is PHP. DNN is MUCH easier to setup and use. Joomla is obtuse at best. If you want easy, you want DNN. If you want PHP, you want Joomla.

Both are highly customizable.

[JavaJones]

Doesn't .NET require a Microsoft-based server? Many web servers (especially the cheaper ones) are Linux-based and may not support it.

Personally I've found Joomla to be pretty easy to setup initially. Customization can be more messy, especially with the variable quality of different extensions/plugins/modules. But overall I find the system fairly functional. I know many people don't, but the same systems some of them recommend (e.g. Xoops), make absolutely no sense to me. Some even claim Drupal is a "more intuitive" system... Hah. Anyway the point is I think it's at least partly a matter of personal taste. For example some people find "node network"-based UI systems (e.g. http://1.bp.blogspot...articleLabNodeUI.PNG) to be highly intuitive, other people can't make head or tails of it. One thing is for sure about Joomla though - the automated installer is very easy to use.

One last thing I want to say is I don't think "if you want PHP, you want Joomla" is really great advice. There are a zillion PHP-based CMSs and Joomla, while admittedly one of the most popular, is not necessarily the best (or most intuitive). Some other good options to consider are Silverstripe and Concrete5, among many others (ModX, the aforementioned Xoops, Drupal, etc. etc.).

- Oshyan

[parkint]

Don't forget there are still some of us "Old Farts" who create HTML/CSS/Javascript with notepad or VIM.
In that case there was no "generator".

[JavaJones]

Yes, I would say generally if a site has dynamic content on it, it is more likely to be made using an off-the-shelf system like Joomla or Wordpress. Sites that have content systems/structures that are widely standardized and used (e.g. blogs) are also more likely to use an existing system. More unique, static content sites are more likely to be hand-coded and figuring out what editor they used is essentially impossible without asking.

One thing to note is that the original question stated " I see a lot of fantastic sites but don't know how to tell what was used.", and I think it's important to be aware that "what was used" may have little or no bearing on how good the site looks or works.

- Oshyan

[Renegade]

Yes. DNN needs a Windows server. You may be able to run it under Mono though if you're on a LAMP stack server. I've not tried it personally.

For any one beginning, I'd really steer them away from Joomla. The administrative interface itself is nightmarishly difficult. The entire concept in how Joomla is structured just seem alien. DNN has a much simpler approach with pages and modules, and that's it. I wouldn't even know how to explain how Joomla is setup.

However, I would still say that even for a simple system like DNN, it's best to get it setup for you or installed for you if you're starting out.

@JavaJones -- How would you describe the Joomla administrative interface so that human beings can understand? I just find it far too complex and involved with too many layers. I'd not have a clue how to start explaining it.

[techidave]

I cannot speak for DNN but our school uses Joomla.  It was setup for us by our ISP and it for some newbies to web design, it is difficult.  I agree with Renegade that its admin interface is clunky and we sometimes have problems figuring out where stuff is and all the layers involved.

But in the interest of saving money, we will be setting up our own web server and thus this thread has become real interesting to me.  It needs to be Open Source or free and easy to use.

[Renegade]

I cannot speak for DNN but our school uses Joomla.  It was setup for us by our ISP and it for some newbies to web design, it is difficult.  I agree with Renegade that its admin interface is clunky and we sometimes have problems figuring out where stuff is and all the layers involved.

But in the interest of saving money, we will be setting up our own web server and thus this thread has become real interesting to me.  It needs to be Open Source or free and easy to use.

-techidave (May 22, 2010, 08:21 AM)

The main cost of running a server is not the OS; it's the time you put into running the server.

i.e. You get what you pay for.

That applies to LAMP stack servers as well. And ESPECIALLY for if you are having a server hosted for you and it is not your own hardware and you're not the physical presence that maintains it.

If you want to get burned badly, I can recommend Layered Technologies. Their support staff bring new meaning to the word "incompetent". I really, seriously mean that. Like starved for oxygen at birth type of incompetent. (They managed to lose all data on a server I managed running RAID 1 (mirrored drives) when there were mainboard issues... Wow... Just stunning.

The Planet is excellent, and very well priced. I have no problems recommending them. I've used them for years and never had any problems. Their prices are honestly fantastic. Also, they're one of the largest IDC companies in the world now.

Anyways, the point there is that the actual company you host with makes a huge difference as well.

I would seriously recommend that you take inventory of your priorities if you are choosing a LAMP stack over a Windows stack because of price. For large clusters or farms, that decision becomes easier. For a single web server, I'm not sure that you will actually end up saving much money/resources. The time you put into developing the site, maintaining it, and administering it are all very important costs.

Your uptime and repair time requirements though will play a big part in that decision. I really have no idea there what you need. (For extreme uptime, I think that it's hard to beat Solaris blade servers.)

Years ago I used several hosting companies after using only dedicated servers. It nearly killed me as I constantly had problems that were all due to the hosting company. I returned to dedicated servers as the server cost compared to the "problem cost" was insignificant.

You can get a Windows server for very cheap. You can run PosGRESQL or MySQL if you don't want to run MS SQL Server, which takes care of the largest licensing fees that you'd have with a Windows server.

By the same token though, you can get very reliable LAMP servers with lots of good development and admin tools. Ask around there though, as I am not really the best person to ask about the best tools for LAMP stacks (I hate Plesk and CPanel.)

Oh, I should mention that the general cost for a Windows license in a hosted environment is about $30, and $50 for some higher server versions. That may have changed somewhat since I last looked. I think the question there then is whether you can save $30 in aspirin/Tylenol per month. 

[app103]

I came across this today:

A set of plugins for the Chrome browser, one of which is capable of identifying various CMS's.

Discover What Powers Your Favorite Websites

[techidave]

thanks for the post, App.  Through your links, I found this one for Firefox.  Link