[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-website] CMS requirements / suitability testing

Hi Bernjamin, *,

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com> wrote:
> I read your full email and don't appreciate the generalization and assumption that I did not.

I apologize if I did insult you/hurt your feelings with that
statement. It surely wasn't my intention.

> [top-posting/Fullquotes]

That might be appropriate for exchange with very few people, over an
extended period of time, but doesn't fit well for a mailinglist where
many people read it, and read the quote the same day/the same hour.
Also quoting and removing irrelevant parts that are not addressed in
the reply greatly helps to not loose track of what is actually being

> My point about the widespread use of Drupal was meant to indicate that it has been tested,
> expanded and improved by a large global community of users for almost a decade now.

No doubt about that - but just because its proven to work for others
doesn't mean it will work for all, obviously.
Vim and emacs have proven to be very flexible, very reliable, etc, but
surely both surely are not the best choice for everyone.

I started this thread to
a) collect requirements for a cms
b) invite people with knowledge of their CMS of choice to comment.

I can only say I picked silverstripe for my test because it was easy
to find documentation about the Translation feature and subsites
feature I took as initial requirements while looking out for
I visited many CMS-homepages, and all seem to hide the documentation
on how to actually interact with the CMS deeply hidden when it comes
to details - silverstripe featured a video that convinced me to give
it a try (and I wasn't disappointed). So I'm biased, because I found
a CMS that does what I need it to do, and does this nicely (IMHO),
thus whenever I look at another CMS now, I'm biased and compare it to
how that stuff is handled in silverstripe.

> [...] Drupal is an extremely robust choice and deserves to appear on our shortlist of platforms for an
> intensive comparison.

Sure, it is on the list!

> If you're not familiar with it, that's not a problem. We can bring in people who know it well to address
> any questions we may have, and possibly even to assist with implementation.

See, that's the problem I have with Top-posting/Fullquotes. I thought
I made it pretty clear that I asked people to create testing sites to
play with the features of any CMS.
As you and also Jonathan pointed out already: Many are highly
customizable, highly complex to any arbitrary level - and of course
you can always extend it/fix it yourself given that all CMS that are
worth having a look are opensource.
But that's also the drawback. You cannot just install and fiddle
around until you got it right. You can do it for one CMS, but surely
not for all.
And honestly, when you provide access to a demo site to let users try
out the CMS, why use such a crippled version? Did you try any of the
demo-sites mentioned here?

If not, please try them and then tell me whether you disagree with me
on my "first-looks decision".

To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to website+unsubscribe@libreoffice.org
List archives are available at http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/website/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted.

Re: [libreoffice-website] CMS requirements / suitability testingBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
[libreoffice-website] CMS requirements / suitability testingChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] CMS requirements / suitability testing"jzacsh" <jzacsh@gmail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] CMS requirements / suitability testingBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] CMS requirements / suitability testingChristian Lohmaier <lohmaier+ooofuture@googlemail.com>
Re: [libreoffice-website] CMS requirements / suitability testingBenjamin Horst <bhorst@mac.com>
Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.