I'm after some Content Management software to run a small business web
site. I've been trying to find something that suits for a couple of
weeks now and after trying several I'm really no further forwards.

So far I have installed and had a play with:-

CMSMadeSimple
Drupal
Exponent
ezPublish
Joomla

.... and probably a couple of others I have forgotten about! :-)

The major problem I have with most of them is that they seem to be
aimed at sites with lots of active content, blogs, news, etc.

For example the last one I tried was Joomla, it installed very
easily (as most of them do) and I took the default sample installation
that they advise beginners to do .... and what do I get - a horribly
complex and complicated front page with three menus down the side,
one menu across the top, a poll on the RHS and several lists etc.

It would take quite a long time to remove all the unwanted stuff and
get down to a simple, single menu (down the side for preference), a
banner and some body text. The default Joomla sample is not only
complex, it looks a bit of a mess IMHO.

A couple of the "Joomla! Facts" that they seem to think are a good
thing:-
# 1168 Projects on the Joomla! Forge (forge.joomla.org ). All for open
source addons by third party developers.
# 890+ extensions for Joomla! registered on the Extension site
(extensions.joomla.org)
Huh! It may be nice to have all those possible extras but they don't
give me warm feelings about its ease of use etc. (Yes, I know I don't
have to use any of them)

All the others that I have tried suffer from similar feature bloat.

Does anyone have any suggestions for CMS software that isn't so
overpowering (or at least isn't so overpowering to use to start with)
and preferably has a collection of simple templates and stylesheets
for a simple, fairly static, web site?

Are there any newsgroups or mailing lists for general CMS questions
and answers where I might get some more help?

--
Chris Green

On Feb 1, 8:37 am, tinn...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> I'm after some Content Management software to run a small business web
> site. I've been trying to find something that suits for a couple of
> weeks now and after trying several I'm really no further forwards.
>
> So far I have installed and had a play with:-
>
> CMSMadeSimple
> Drupal
> Exponent
> ezPublish
> Joomla
>
> ... and probably a couple of others I have forgotten about! :-)
>
> The major problem I have with most of them is that they seem to be
> aimed at sites with lots of active content, blogs, news, etc.
>
> For example the last one I tried was Joomla, it installed very
> easily (as most of them do) and I took the default sample installation
> that they advise beginners to do .... and what do I get - a horribly
> complex and complicated front page with three menus down the side,
> one menu across the top, a poll on the RHS and several lists etc.
>
> It would take quite a long time to remove all the unwanted stuff and
> get down to a simple, single menu (down the side for preference), a
> banner and some body text. The default Joomla sample is not only
> complex, it looks a bit of a mess IMHO.

I don't know about Joomla!, as I am more familiar with Drupal.
However, I think that you likely have missed a step here and thus have
become confused at the apparent complexity.

Most of the CMS that you list provide for (and provide) alternate
"themes" which can be installed and customized fairly simply. Instead
of removing all the unwanted stuff (presumably, by hand), you are
expected to either find and install a theme that implements just what
you want, or tweak the default theme through the management interface
to disable the unwanted stuff.

As I say, I am familiar with Drupal, and the selection of UI elements
(blogs, polls, etc) is a very painless process no matter which theme
you select.

[snip]

> All the others that I have tried suffer from similar feature bloat.

Hmmmm.... Does it matter, when you buy a new hammer, that the big box
store that you get tools from has a wide selection of other tools? To
me, it doesn't matter, if I'm not buying other tools.

Most of these CMS applications take the same approach. The "features"
of your "feature bloat" are optional add-ons. If you don't want them,
don't install them. FWIW, Drupal has a nice set of add-on features,
and the base system is fairly lean.

> Does anyone have any suggestions for CMS software that isn't so
> overpowering (or at least isn't so overpowering to use to start with)
> and preferably has a collection of simple templates and stylesheets
> for a simple, fairly static, web site?

Sorry, I don't have any suggestions there. How good are you at writing
HTML?

[snip]

Lew Pitcher <lpitcher@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > It would take quite a long time to remove all the unwanted stuff and
> > get down to a simple, single menu (down the side for preference), a
> > banner and some body text. The default Joomla sample is not only
> > complex, it looks a bit of a mess IMHO.
>
> I don't know about Joomla!, as I am more familiar with Drupal.
> However, I think that you likely have missed a step here and thus have
> become confused at the apparent complexity.
>
> Most of the CMS that you list provide for (and provide) alternate
> "themes" which can be installed and customized fairly simply. Instead
> of removing all the unwanted stuff (presumably, by hand), you are
> expected to either find and install a theme that implements just what
> you want, or tweak the default theme through the management interface
> to disable the unwanted stuff.
>
Well I thought I had looked for exactly this when I installed Drupal
but I didn't seem to find anything particularly useful. Maybe I
should go back and try Drupal again because it was one of the first I
tried.


> As I say, I am familiar with Drupal, and the selection of UI elements
> (blogs, polls, etc) is a very painless process no matter which theme
> you select.
>
You said it "blogs, polls, etc." are just what I don't have any need
for at all. Yes, I know that there are more static content types but
thay aren't the mainstream.

I actually found a review that was saying what I've found, most CMS
seem to be very weak on markup within static content.

I had quite a long thread going in the Drupal mailing list about this
about the difficulty/weaknesss of Drupali's content entry and I didn't
really get an answer in the end.


> [snip]
>
> > All the others that I have tried suffer from similar feature bloat.
>
> Hmmmm.... Does it matter, when you buy a new hammer, that the big box
> store that you get tools from has a wide selection of other tools? To
> me, it doesn't matter, if I'm not buying other tools.
>
.... but with CMS I'm buying the whole store and I can't actually find
the hammer! :-)


> Most of these CMS applications take the same approach. The "features"
> of your "feature bloat" are optional add-ons. If you don't want them,
> don't install them. FWIW, Drupal has a nice set of add-on features,
> and the base system is fairly lean.
>
Well it doesn't look 'lean' to me! :-)


> > Does anyone have any suggestions for CMS software that isn't so
> > overpowering (or at least isn't so overpowering to use to start with)
> > and preferably has a collection of simple templates and stylesheets
> > for a simple, fairly static, web site?
>
> Sorry, I don't have any suggestions there. How good are you at writing
> HTML?
>
I can do it, but I was hoping for something in between writing HTML
(with or without a WYSIWYG) maintaining all the structure myself and
what seem to me overly complex CMS tools.

--
Chris Green

tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:

>I'm after some Content Management software to run a small business web
>site. I've been trying to find something that suits for a couple of
>weeks now and after trying several I'm really no further forwards.
>
>So far I have installed and had a play with:-
>
> CMSMadeSimple
> Drupal
> Exponent
> ezPublish
> Joomla
>
>... and probably a couple of others I have forgotten about! :-)
>
>The major problem I have with most of them is that they seem to be
>aimed at sites with lots of active content, blogs, news, etc.
>
>Does anyone have any suggestions for CMS software that isn't so
>overpowering (or at least isn't so overpowering to use to start with)
>and preferably has a collection of simple templates and stylesheets
>for a simple, fairly static, web site?
>
>Are there any newsgroups or mailing lists for general CMS questions
>and answers where I might get some more help?

I am using WebSite Baker (http://websitebaker.org/) for a few sites.

I don't have a lot of experience with CMS packages but this one was
recommended to me. It seems to be very general purpose, the forum is
very active and helpful and it is very "hackable" under the hood.

The more I use it the more comfortable I get and satisfied with it.
It is also Open Source and I find that a big plus.

Hopefully others will have some helpful comments for you.

Good luck!
--
------------------------------------------------
http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
------------------------------------------------

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Feb 1, 11:02 am, Doug Mitton <doug_mit...@hotmail.x.com> wrote:
> tinn...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> >I'm after some Content Management software to run a small business web
> >site. I've been trying to find something that suits for a couple of
> >weeks now and after trying several I'm really no further forwards.
>
> >So far I have installed and had a play with:-
>
> > CMSMadeSimple
> > Drupal
> > Exponent
> > ezPublish
> > Joomla
>
> >... and probably a couple of others I have forgotten about! :-)
>
> >The major problem I have with most of them is that they seem to be
> >aimed at sites with lots of active content, blogs, news, etc.
>
> >Does anyone have any suggestions for CMS software that isn't so
> >overpowering (or at least isn't so overpowering to use to start with)
> >and preferably has a collection of simple templates and stylesheets
> >for a simple, fairly static, web site?
>
> >Are there any newsgroups or mailing lists for general CMS questions
> >and answers where I might get some more help?
>
> I am using WebSite Baker (http://websitebaker.org/) for a few sites.
>
> I don't have a lot of experience with CMS packages but this one was
> recommended to me. It seems to be very general purpose, the forum is
> very active and helpful and it is very "hackable" under the hood.
>
> The more I use it the more comfortable I get and satisfied with it.
> It is also Open Source and I find that a big plus.
>
> Hopefully others will have some helpful comments for you.
>
> Good luck!
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
> SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

You can try before you install = http://opensourcecms.com/
I personally like/use Drupal.
e107 is nice too.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:37:17 +0000, tinnews wrote:
> All the others that I have tried suffer from similar feature bloat.

Frankly, I have stopped using CMSes for that reason. They are bloated, but
usually don't exactly provide the features that you actually need. Besides
that, they often have a horrible security track record, and third party
plugins are not updated at all. Personally I use fairly simple
alternatives:

* For very small and simple sites, I use plain HTML with server side
includes. All common stuff (header, footer) is separated in a header
and footer file, so all page files only contain the page contents
and include the headers and footers. This is very fast, and especially
if you are on a loaded shared server, this is the best way to make
your site feel snappy and fast. And because all common layout is shared,
it doesn't take a lot of time to maintain.

* For larger sites, it is often useful to use a lightweight framework.
E.g. web.py is a very small framework that just provides the cruft
needed to build a website quickly (database abstraction, templates),
without the complexity trap.

* For full-blown stuff, I use a slightly heavier, but still pretty light
framework like Django. Building "applications" for things like polls,
news, pages, etc. usually just takes a few lines of code, but does give
you control over the process. I have now written a filter that converts
a wiki-like syntax to HTML, that I can apply to pages, news items, etc.
Have a look at their tutorial, and be impressed .

While these approaches may give you a bit more of work initially, they
also give you full control over your website/application. It doesn't force
you to do things in a certain way, it's up to you to decide how you want
to have it. Of course, this fits well with the UNIX/Slackware/you name it
mentality :-).

[1] http://webpy.org/

Doug Mitton <doug_mitton@hotmail.x.com> wrote:
> tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >The major problem I have with most of them is that they seem to be
> >aimed at sites with lots of active content, blogs, news, etc.
> >
> >Does anyone have any suggestions for CMS software that isn't so
> >overpowering (or at least isn't so overpowering to use to start with)
> >and preferably has a collection of simple templates and stylesheets
> >for a simple, fairly static, web site?
> >
> >Are there any newsgroups or mailing lists for general CMS questions
> >and answers where I might get some more help?
>
> I am using WebSite Baker (http://websitebaker.org/) for a few sites.
>
That's one that I sort of had on my 'still to try' list so I'll push
it up the list and try it. Thanks.

--
Chris Green

Daniel de Kok <daniel@nowhere.nospam> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:37:17 +0000, tinnews wrote:
> > All the others that I have tried suffer from similar feature bloat.
>
> Frankly, I have stopped using CMSes for that reason. They are bloated, but
> usually don't exactly provide the features that you actually need. Besides
> that, they often have a horrible security track record, and third party
> plugins are not updated at all. Personally I use fairly simple
> alternatives:
>
> * For very small and simple sites, I use plain HTML with server side
> includes. All common stuff (header, footer) is separated in a header
> and footer file, so all page files only contain the page contents
> and include the headers and footers. This is very fast, and especially
> if you are on a loaded shared server, this is the best way to make
> your site feel snappy and fast. And because all common layout is shared,
> it doesn't take a lot of time to maintain.
>
This could be the way I should go, the only issue being that I could
do with a bit of hand-holding/help (from software presumably) in
writing the headers and footers. Are there any tools for this?


> * For larger sites, it is often useful to use a lightweight framework.
> E.g. web.py is a very small framework that just provides the cruft
> needed to build a website quickly (database abstraction, templates),
> without the complexity trap.
>
That looks interesting too, a more 'programmatic' way of creating a
web site which would suit me quite well (I'm a C/C++/Java programmer
by profession), I have dabbled a bit in Python.


> * For full-blown stuff, I use a slightly heavier, but still pretty light
> framework like Django. Building "applications" for things like polls,
> news, pages, etc. usually just takes a few lines of code, but does give
> you control over the process. I have now written a filter that converts
> a wiki-like syntax to HTML, that I can apply to pages, news items, etc.
> Have a look at their tutorial, and be impressed .
>
Hmm, maybe I should start looking at frameworks.


> While these approaches may give you a bit more of work initially, they
> also give you full control over your website/application. It doesn't force
> you to do things in a certain way, it's up to you to decide how you want
> to have it. Of course, this fits well with the UNIX/Slackware/you name it
> mentality :-).
>
Thanks for all the helpful input, it's given me some food for thought.

--
Chris Green

On 02 Feb 2007 11:26:13 GMT, tinnews@isbd.co.uk wrote:

>This could be the way I should go, the only issue being that I could
>do with a bit of hand-holding/help (from software presumably) in
>writing the headers and footers. Are there any tools for this?

http://werbach.com/barebones/ a quick tag lookup
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/ html markup reference
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1 css reference
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ ditto
http://validator.w3.org/ html validator
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ ditto for css

You have the apache manual for SSI (server side includes) reference.

Software? Vim! )

Grant.
--
http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 06:55:29 +1100, Grant wrote:
> You have the apache manual for SSI (server side includes) reference.
>
> Software? Vim! )

That sums it up , or to give an example (that pulls in just a part of
the content through SSI):

index.html:
---
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>My site: Home</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/default.css" type="text/css" />
</head>

<body>
<div id="container">
<!--#include virtual="/share/logo.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/share/menu.html" -->

<div id="content">
<p>Yadda</p>
</div>

</div>
</body>
</html>
---

This pulls in /share/logo.html and /share/menu.html, which are just HTML
snippets, e.g.:

/share/menu.html
---
<div id="menu">
<a href="/">Home</a>
<a href="/about.shtml">About</a>
<a href="/links.shtml">Links</a>
</div>
---

Pfew, that must be the first legitimate HTML post in this group . At any
rate, SSIs are one of the greatest things since sliced bread. Others
reinvented it poorly .

-- Daniel