Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

E2 and LJ, Comparing Content Management Systems 111

Posted by CmdrTaco from the hell-is-coding-another-cms dept.
Anonymous Noder/LJ'er writes "Linux.com is running a story written by Slashdot's Krow, one of the authors of Slash comparing the LiveJournal site engine to the Everything2 engine. He went over the installs of the two engines and talks a bit about customizing both. I really like both sites so it is interesting to see someone talk about what makes them tick."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

E2 and LJ, Comparing Content Management Systems More

E2 and LJ, Comparing Content Management Systems

Comments Filter:
  • The first story posted after the Internal Server Error is about Krow and what makes /. and e2 tick.

    You couldn't plan that better!

    • What does Slashdot have to do with LJ/E2? Slashdot is powered by Slashcode, which even though a related project (in some fashion) to Slashcode/Slashdot, isn't quite the same thing.

  • How do these compare to Squishdot? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bodhammer ( 559311 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @12:44AM (#4168179)
    I have a potential content management project- How do these compare to Zope [zope.org] running ? Squishdot? [squishdot.org]

    (p.s. do I get mod'd up for posting the first real comment?)

    • I think we should have a CMS showdown on slashdot. Personally I work for a company that makes a CMS called WebGUI which I think is very good. I also like the Java-based Cofax project. There are so many CMS's out there, we really need some sort of ranking system to rate them all.
    • Be sure to check out plone [plone.org]. Built on top of Zope+CMF, its definately worth a look.
    • And how do any of them compare to Documentum or
      FileNET?
    • If anyone wants to try this combo (Zope,Squishdot), have a look at FreeZope.org [freezope.org]


      The free account is somewhat limited - you don't get full control, but it should be a nice first start.

    • Zope is great, I'm using it for e.g. euliberals.net [euliberals.net], but Squishdot is very simple and does not have that many features at all. It's more of a one-trick pony and does not play in the same league as Everything. Even though I prefer Zope I've never found a place for Squishdot; it's still too primitive: Last time I cehcked you were supposed to enter your name for making a comment and there is no moderation, just to name two things. Take a look at perlmonks [perlmonks.org] to see what a site based on Everything can do.

      cheers,
      /jeorgen

    • Hmmm... we truly could run a story comparing more than these two CMS systems. For example, I really love APC ActionApps [sourceforge.net]. Originally developed for use for nonprofit organizations, so it has excellent content pooling/sharing capabilities.
      The question is, how does one go about comparing? What are the criteria?
      • The criteria is the problem, which is why the best content management solution for an organisation is a custom built solution based on their requirements.

        It's also why you never hear good things about companies who try to implement commercial CMSs like Vignette. I personally worked on a website that was being converted to use the Aprtix CMS, and basically we had to tailor the site to fit the CMS rather than building the site we wanted. Without doing it yourself you use flexibility.

        At the organisation I work for now we (I) custom built a CMS on top of Lotus Domino (perfect for Workflow etc), which exactly meets the buisnesses needs.
    • Or Zope using CMF [zope.org]. Either of which are great solutions.

  • (fruit) vs. (fruit) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Xunker ( 6905 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @12:49AM (#4168191) Homepage Journal
    Comments about administration policy asside, I think that comparing the two isn't strictly fair. At least, not on absolute terms.

    As a developer on both codebases, teh differences as I see them are basic: Ecore is about grouping and linking as sets, while lj is more about mass indexing of list-type data.

    One of ecores main weekness is scalability, or lack thereof -- this is not a slam on teh code, but just an introspection on design. Because lj os more about this loose-linked list paradigm, it can easily scale and cluster on mutliple machine while ecore, with it's extreme data interlinking, is heaving right now with redesigns to allow that.

    Of course, Ecore (or at least E2) has a much better XML interface, which is probably it's second strongest point. It's first strongest and most important is the concpet that everything is a node.

  • PostNuke (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How about Postnuke www.postnuke.com
    It seems to be better then any of these.

  • What i would find much more interesting (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is a real run-down comparison between the everything engine [everydevel.com], j2ee [sun.com], zope [zope.org], and webobjects [apple.com].

    Yeah, so if you're just doing some random weblog, it makes sense to look at things at the unabstract, content-management-system level. But some of us find more interesting the idea of a system that allows for you to create a website by attaching abstract prebuilt website components together, defining the kinds of pages that you will have on your site as types, and then allowing the website to be created on a backend by less tech-saavy users who are shielded by the system from the raw code. This is what the above four systems basically are.. and it is much more powerful than just a simple CMS, though you can certainly incorporate CMS features into something you make with it.

  • Have you considered Wikis for content management? (Score:5, Informative)

    by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @01:20AM (#4168262)
    If you like to keep things simple, sometimes a Wiki might be the only thing you need.

    Here is the original WikiWikiWeb: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors [c2.com]
    Here is a Wiki you can easily install on your own machine: http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/swiki/15 [gatech.edu]
    Here is a free Wiki farm that let's you start your own on a shared server: http://www.seedwiki.com [seedwiki.com]

    • An ASP Wiki: http://www.openwiki.com

      Their difference engine is amazing. :)

  • These sound like *almost* what I am looking for (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have been looking for a web-based system to manage personal data. I don't mean calendar, contact list, etc, but more general things.

    Basically I need a replacement for a filing cabinent that will let me upload documents (and maybe grab copies of web pages), store them in some sort of semantic web/catagory hierarchy, annotate them, replace them with updated versions etc. Ideally, the system would work with a wide variety of data types: pictures, pdfs, text files, html/xml, word documents etc.

    Is there a system avaialable that does this sort of thing?
    • How about using a Wiki? I use TWiki [twiki.org] at work, it's really nice and does all you ask for (including revision control using rcs on ALL documents, including file attachments).

      Alex

    • E2 could quite happily be used for this. The main thing to remember (speaking from experience) is that the real work starts once you have got the thing up and running - installation is just the first step.

      Once you get used to it though, and if you put the time in, it's amazingly flexible. You also have the bonus that it's a multi-user system out-of-the-box, and with permissions etc this can be very powerful. For example, you could allow friends of yours to use your site in the same way you do, and also allow guests to view some content, or whatever.

      Just a note: fiddling woth your E2 site can become very addictive ;o)

  • This CMS is used on www.mcti.ro [www.mcti.ro] an looks good.
    It is based on their new technology - Krysalis.
    • I am Alexandru COSTIN from InterAKT. We have indeed released a full fledged CMS that is used for eGovernment in Romania.

      Before throwing dirt in it, you should find out more about the solution, which is now pretty experimental and which is not released to the public yet.

      Our CMS is a leap forward in what we call Content Management, because it is based on a new approach: the Krysalis XML publishing framework (GPL). The framework (this is open source and it is still under heavy development) is one of the most powerful frameworks for PHP (it is inspired from Cocoon2, so I woun't use the word innovative, even if we have inside a lot of things that are not in the original cocoon approach).

      Krysalis allows code reuse and extensibility using taglibs, offers a great performance (many caching layers already implemented), and also allows people to separate the application login from the presentation layer.

      Together with Krysalis, we also ship KrysalIDE(non commercial version available for download), a powerful development environment designed to pipelined XML transforms.

      Those powerful tools and platforms, combined with our other (non XML) solutions (survey manager, mailing list application, WYSIWYG editor), allowed us to create a very powerful CMS, from scratch comparable with their 5-6 numbers figures.

      We are planning now to release a version of the CMS for free (XMLnuke would be a nice name, but it's already taken), and continue to improve it on the commercial side for a more powerful offering.

      The release will happen at the PHP International Conference 2002 this fall, so only after you'lll see it there you will be able to evaluate it.

      See more about us at http://www.interakt.ro

      Alexandru

  • PHP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv@nOspam.ivoss.com> on Friday August 30, 2002 @02:03AM (#4168372) Homepage Journal
    It would have nice if they included installs of Postnuke [postnuke.org] and/or Phpnuke [phpnuke.org]. I've installed slashcode, phpnuke, and postnuke with phpnuke probably taking the cake for the easiest to install.

    • Re:PHP - PHPwebsite (Score:3, Informative)

      by Epeeist ( 2682 )
      Another PHP based CMS that shows a lot of promise is phpwebsite [appstate.edu]. Easy to install, lots of modules, licenced under the GPL.

      The major downside to it (which seem to be common to most things in this area) is a lack of documentation.

    • Re:PHP (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Fweeky ( 41046 )
      Pfft, the least secure PHP application on earth (and one of the worst written), and another app based on the least secure and worst written PHP app? No thanks :)

      Personally I've found that pretty much all systems like this turn out to be messy, badly written, poorly designed, and have URI's that would make TBL gag.

      Case in point: phpNuke, long, long history of major security holes, with a hugely speghettified codebase.

      Scoop, with embedded Perl and HTML thrown about everywhere in the database.

      Drupal, with raw HTML everywhere in the PHP.

      This pattern repeats just about everywhere. The closest I've found to an open source web application which doesn't make me want to hit something is ezPublish [www.ez.no], which at least makes an effort to have reasonable URI's, and has a decent attempt at making itself OO (although sadly at a significant cost of performance).

      Developers: mod_rewrite is your friend. Go read Cool URI's Don't Change [w3.org], and maybe TBL's other Hypertext Style Guide [w3.org] stuff, it'll be good for you even if you don't agree with all of it.
  • I wrote my own journaling program (blogger system). It's based on html forms and MySql, and is written entirely in perl. I never really intended for it to be much more than an exercise to learn a little MySql. It's basically done with one major exception, security. I need a decent way to handle remote passwords. Currently, I use a combination of AuthUserFile/deny/allow in .htaccess to limit who can make changes. I need to implement a better system, but can't decide the best way to go about doing this.

    • Look at mod_auth_mysql (Score:4, Informative)

      by Wee ( 17189 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @04:43AM (#4168572)
      Currently, I use a combination of AuthUserFile/deny/allow in .htaccess to limit who can make changes. I need to implement a better system, but can't decide the best way to go about doing this.

      If you are into rolling your own, then take a look at the Look at mod_auth_mysql [freshmeat.net] Apache module. It's basically .htaccess file kind of access control except the user info is in a MySQL DB. So you can do updates/inerts/whatever on the database via your perl and get close to what you need as far as access control without having to write files in the docroot.

      You might not be able to make it fine-grained enough, but if you have a thing where each user (for instance) gets their own directory or something then it might work pretty well for you.

      And if you are not into rolling your own anymore, check out Moveable Type [movabletype.org].

      -B

  • I haven't looked at the code of either E2 or LJ, but have visited and played with both. They are both painfully slow, to the point where the software really seems to be doing something it doesn't need to do. LJ's main competition is diaryland.com, which is also free, is at least as powerful, has a bigger user population and more traffic, and yet the site is much more responsive.

    Any comparison of software like this should really talk about performance and not just installation and administration ease. Any idea if these systems can be sped up, and what else is out there?

    • One of the reasons I think most CMS systems seem to be slow (on the client side at least) is because they insist on using tables for everything. You end up with tables inside tables inside tables inside...

      Most browsers take inordinate amounts of time to render pages with this kind of structure. Much cleaner to use
      and , especially for tables consisting of one cell which many of these systems generate.
      • Somehow that paragraph got clobbered by /. filters somehow, so I wondered what it said.

        Anyway, for e2 and livejournal, that wasn't the nature of the slowness that I notice.

        Is there some reason e2 doesn't use InnoDB?


    • I can't speak for LiveJournal, but the main reason everythign2.com is slow is due to the fact that MySQL 3.x doesn't do row level locking, the whole table must be locked. If you install ecore with MySQL 4 and use InnoDB tables, your performance will be *much* better than e2. Also don't forget that e2 is a pretty large community, so there are a lot of other things going on (messages to users and groups, randomized greetings, people uploading homenode pictures, etc) that might not be used as much on a custom ecore site.
  • I'm I going to get flamed saying that I'm buidling a CMS right now with ASP-COM-XML-SQL ? :)
    • Hey, have fun! A really useful CMS is hard to build. I hope you've nailed down your requirements really well with your future users because that sucker is gonna snowball otherwise!

      I would do myself a favor at this point though and go to .NET, if you have the option. Yeah, it's a learning curve, but since you're on the Microsoft wagon anyway, you'll be better off in the long run if you bite the bullet now.

      Best of luck!
  • Usually, when you have to present your ideas on the web you do not need all those complicated content management systems. Ususually you want to present just idea in well structured manner without any fancy features.

    Currently there are 2 tools that allow you to do generate static web sites while defining only structure of web site and content:

    Qixite (Open source, Linux & Windows): http://qixite.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]
    and
    CityDesk (Commercial, Windows only):
    http://www.fogcreek.com/CityDesk [fogcreek.com]

    These tools are usually enough, and you do not need to set anything up on the server side because these programs generate static html files.
    • Hi,
      I'am a great fan of Joel (fogcreek), but I'm not so much into the static CMS thing.

      Database based CMS are much interesting from many points of view, and allow you to do things that are impossible in the static approach (like personalized homepage, online editing, forums, etc).

      There is indeed a performance penalty, but with some skills it can be resolved. For example we (InterAKT), have developed the Romanian Misistry of Communications and IT using a complete database driven approach, together with XML/XSL generation. The system flexibility is that high, that we can reproduce this for any other site in a matter of days (and we're talking about a real complex CMS, check www.mcti.ro [www.mcti.ro] for details (all the site structure and content is database driven - menus, pages, article lists, polls, homepage layout, nugget list). The performance wasn't that high, a page being server in about 200-300 milis.

      So we were forced to create this cache approach, that was implemented only once, and which allowed us to serve pages in 12-20 milis. The cache compiles the URL parameters and if caches the output of those URL's on disk. When a new request with the same parameters is made, the premade file is served. (OOP zealots might call this "lazy instantiation" of the static version:). All this with the flexibility maintained. I doubt you can do this with the static page generators....

      If you want to find more about the technology, check : http://www.interakt.ro/ [interakt.ro]
      Alexandru
      • Hi acostin,

        sure static CMS is not the answer to everything. It's just that dynamic CMS is not the answer to everything either. Sure page serving performance issues are solvable.
        It's just that:
        1. it is inconvenient to me to use browser to edit the information.
        2. you usually have to set up the database and CMS system on the server and this is not alway possible

        By the way Qixite allows embeding php (or ASP) or any other embedable code.
        • 1. There are very poweful online editors available as we speak (literally they are embedded as ActiveXs in MSIE and it's pretty easy to use them). The browser window can behave pretty much like dreamweaver/frontpage/word. (we have one, KTML2)

          2. This is true, but this also guarantees you data integrity (as this ia what relational databases usually do)

          Alexandru

  • AxKit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mindriot ( 96208 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @04:14AM (#4168540)

    Having looked at several CMS for a website I am going to relaunch, I needed an approach that was most general and would allow me to choose how I could store the content and separate the design. OK, the difference to the projects mentioned here is that I don't need a large system to manage things like user comments or other methods of dynamically adding pages. Currently I think I will go with AxKit [axkit.org], which is not really a CMS, but basically an on-the-fly caching XSLT processor. For me this provides the most flexible solution. I have designed an XML format to store my content files, and can then use either an XSL stylesheet to produce HTML or WML or whatever needed, or write an XPathScript style sheet allowing me to process the XML data while additionally using perl code to add dynamic features. The nice thing is that with AxKit you can use HTTP GET parameters to allow different style sheets (plain, xhtml, print, ...), pick a style sheet depending on browser type (lynx, netscape4, mozilla...), etc. And for a website offering mostly static content that needs to be organized in a proper way, I think separating content from layout using XML seems like a good idea. What I like to is that it's easily possible to include multiple language versions of your page in your XML data files and transform to HTML based on, say, a ?lang attribute. Plus, you could even store the XML content tree in CVS...

    For websites that are just trying to be in control of their mostly static content, AxKit surely helps (provided you have access to the server box as you need to install the apache module...). Storing pure content as XML and then providing different stylesheets for layout seems a proper way to go for me.

    Of course, this is not to say I don't like the LJ or E2 engines, butjust depending on what you need for your website, XML might be helpful, and AxKit might be the way to implement it.

    • Re:AxKit (Score:4, Informative)

      by Matts ( 1628 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @06:48AM (#4168799) Homepage
      There are a few options for content management systems built on top of AxKit.

      First if your needs are really simple you can try the AxKit wiki [cpan.org], which is the only wiki out there that allows you to enter data in either XML (sdocbook), WikiWiki text, or Perl's POD format. Although right now the wiki is extremely simplistic (no versioning or user management), it's quite extensible.

      Next up the ladder of complexity is CallistoCMS [callistocms.com] which is has a really cool online editor component, basically allowing you to do almost WYSIWYG editing of XML content live in the web browser (all just uses pure HTML+CSS+JS+DOM, no ActiveX or Java plugins involved).

      Finally there's XIMS [sf.net], which is basically what you might consider as a full blown CMS, including versioning, metadata, workflow, etc etc.

  • Check out Typo3 (Score:3, Informative)

    by peted20 ( 412418 ) <petedoyle&gmail,com> on Friday August 30, 2002 @04:19AM (#4168548)
    I've been playing around with the Typo3 CMS lately, its really pretty amazing. It can do some pretty impressive dynamic graphics generation, especially in terms of graphical navigation menus and rescaling and optimization of images. I've made a couple dynamic sites with it and it has proved to be very well thought out and extremely well documented (IMHO).

    www.typo3.com [typo3.com]

    Some really cool features: (Stolen directly from typo3.com)
    • Navigational menus are automatically created - even if the menu is made graphically - perhaps even with background-images, dropshadows on text and roll-over effects!
    • Images uploaded and used on pages are automatically scaled to the correct size (no HTML-scaling!) and stored on the server with a minimum filesize. Even non-web image-formats can be used! (TIF, AI, PDF, PCX and more). And you can without further knowledge just upload your digital-camera pictures and they'll be scaled automatically.
    • Headlines and other graphical elements with shifting content is also automatically generated.
    • You can differenciate the website-design by creating variations in the templates based on the client browser, IP-number or number-range, operating system, countrycodes, userchosen parameters eg. printing-friendly versions of no-frames versions.You can have multiple templates on a site.
    • Pages can be timed to be shown on a certain date, be hidden on a certain date or just temporarily hidden.
    • Typo3 has a build-in password-protecting option on the pages. Thereby protected pages are only visible for users from a certain usergroup.
    • Typo3 supports search in SQL-databases.
    • Redesigning of a website at once is a question of creating one single new template.
    I've started to use it for a couple sites in the last six months, and its really made web development fun.

    -Pete

  • The only real test for performance... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @04:40AM (#4168569) Homepage

    Okay, you can sit around with your TI-86 all night long and talk about XML parsing times, but who cares? The only real test of a site is how much it provides content, and by content, I mean a peek into the life of CowboyNeal. Using this test, let's compare:


    CowboyNeal on e2 [everything2.com]


    Versus

    CowboyNeal's livejournal account [livejournal.com].


    Aside from technical details, which one of these gives us more insight into the delicate poetic soul that is Mr. Pater?

  • MS Sharepoint Portal Server (Score:4, Informative)

    by DGolden ( 17848 ) on Friday August 30, 2002 @04:44AM (#4168574) Homepage Journal
    MS Sharepoint Portal Server [microsoft.com] is the a next round in MS's binding of the corporate office bureaucracy to them. It's basically a Web CMS and DMS that fully integrates with the rest of MS Office.

    It's a pretty damn poor Document Manager, and a really abysmal Content Manager in most respects (except for - again a killer feature - WYSIWIG page editing inclusive of component embedding), but the MS Office integration is the key. And of course, no-one can integrate with MS Office better than MS.

    If there was a decent "Open Office Portal Server" then things would be just dandy - but, as it is, Sharepoint will act to lock people into another round of MS-dependency. Sharepoint Portal Server has been used by people talking to me as an argument to stick with MS Office even with the existence of open office and star office.

    • Sharing INFORMATION is something different than sharing worddocuments. However a lot of people tend to think that 'information' should be stored in worddocuments, which then have to be harvested into databases and / or distributed by a CMS on top of that.

      Why on earth would anyone start to hammering in texts into a worddocument when there will be no paper-version of the document, ever? There is no need for a wordprocessor to share information, on the contrary.
      • Why on earth would anyone start to hammering in texts into a worddocument when there will be no paper-version of the document, ever? There is no need for a wordprocessor to share information, on the contrary.
        <rant>
        That's true, but people will keep using .doc for everything, because windows encourages it. Word documents can be previewed in (i)expolrer, viewed as thumbnail icons, and do pretty much anything that html and text can do on Linux, but with better formatting. The average user sees word .doc as the be-all-and-end-all of text storage, because they look pretty good and are easy to create. Office reinforces this impression by giving dire warnings about loss of formatting when you try to export a word .doc to any other format.

        The reason should be obvious. MS Word .doc (specifically Word version $LATEST on Windows $LATEST) is the source of Bill Gates' market power. It is the One Ring that binds the business world to Microsoft, and the engine that drives it's upgrade treadmill. No company dares ditch word, because they would be unable to communicate with clients and vendors who use it. Better yet, as soon as one of their clients gets a newer version of word, they have to buy it too, if they want to keep reading their orders.
        </rant>

  • Also, on a somewhat serious note, e2 isn't about the technical interface...not that it wasn't nice for Mr. Nate et al to give it to us. However, e2 really succeeds as much as it does for the human bonds it encourages. Or in other words, what other web community can gather 100 people from across the continent to have a scavenger hunt?

  • If anyone wishes to see a modified E2 install in place, go on over to PerlMonks [perlmonks.org] and poke around. Look at the layout, the structure, the search engine and see if it fits your needs.

    Seeing it in action there, and having used it there for almost a year, it has convinced me personally, that E2 is the way to go for this type of content management system, but YMMV.

  • What if it's not your machine? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Salamander ( 33735 ) <jeff@ p l . a t y p.us> on Friday August 30, 2002 @08:41AM (#4169069) Homepage Journal

    One of the assumption that's being made both in the story and in many of the comments is that the CMS runs on a dedicated machine over which you have total control. This assumption covers database formats and filesystem layouts that are unfriendly to multiple installations, plus custom Apache configs (even an Apache dependency is noxious IMO) to "just install mod_obscure_widget" pseudo-advice.

    The problem is that the assumption is just not true for many people, who run their sites on servers owned, configured and administered by a hosting provider. Any CMS that can be installed in such an environment automatically becomes about five times more useful than one that requires total control of a dedicated machine. That's the review/comparison that would really be useful to most of us.

  • The tiny 6 pt fixed font on this page makes it unreadable. Not everyone is 19 or has strong eyes.

    In the future lets pick review sites that allow the Web client to format the fonts.
  • i've been playing with pMachine [pmachine.com] for a couple of weeks to see if i could get to do my bidding as a easy to configure CMS for some web sites i'm designing. over all i've been very impressed with the php/mysql based blogger style script. fairly flexible, great support/documentation, and easy to setup and use. not sure it is as full featured as some of the other mentioned so far, but for what most people need it does the job, especially if your all thumbs when it comes to backend coding like me.
  • Comparing Content Management Systems

    comparing the LiveJournal site engine to the Everything2 engine.

    This actually is one of my pet peeves. CMS is a larger term than just "web site management system". CMS need not have anything to do with web site management; it may act as backend system that may include authoring part, workflow management.

    This is probably also why it seems all commercial CMSs have big problems (I work on a project that uses one and we have plenty of issues. That is, if they are "just" web site management systems, geared towards web design, they should be marketed as such. The company I work for bought a reasonably pricey CMS with some expectations, and then developers find out it's only glorified web management system. The irony is that not only are we rewriting much of existing functionality, we are not even using most of 'advanced' functionality that is mostly related to actual web publishing (in our case CMS is not the front-end system).

    "Full" CMSes should probably concentrate on having complete robust platform for developing actual applications, which can then drive web sites or other publishing (often publishing to actual front-end systems, not being one). It would be good to have reasonable interfaces to actual publishing front-ends (web servers etc)... but it shouldn't be too tightly coupled.

    • I agree. If you think a CMS is the same as a blog, then consider the following questions:

      1. Can the software support different media types and still keep all the material searchable?

      2. Can the software support future media types, i.e. media types which are currently unknown? By support here, I mean store, retrieve, present, and make searchable.

      3. Can the software support versioning of media items?

      4. Can the software support multiple levels of security on media items?

      blah blah blah...

      A blog is just for text, and maybe some graphics. Try running a real company on just those.
  • ...then I will create him with my own hands.

    All I want is a nice script to run on my blog/site that I just have to type a title and a message and it will automatically be put into the "static" page, and it shows the latest X posts, and automatically groups entries in an archive by month. Is that so much to ask?

    Sucks too, cause I don't know anything about scripting, and school is right around the corner, so I don't have time to learn. I need my blog for the school year!

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close