Which Cms Is The Best?

[D9r]

I know, I know -- "best" is subjective. But let's be honest: some CMSs really are better than others. For example, phpBB is a coder's nightmare if you want to go in and make changes, and it's a hacker's field day regarding security. In other words, phpBB is not one of the best CMSs.

[D9r]

Here are my impressions based on current research:

Forums:
```````
* punBB (http://punbb.org/) - seems good. It's stripped down with no gratuitous graphics, coded in xhtml/css, supposedly coded well in php.
* fudforum (http://fudforum.org/forum/) - supposedly coded well, but not xhtml/css compliant, frequent misspellings in documentation which always makes me wonder

Portals:
``````
* Mambo (http://mamboserver.com/) - looks good, lots of support,
* phpNuke (http://www.phpnuke.org/) - another big name one
* Xoops (http://www.xoops.org/) - looks good
* lightphpcms (http://lightphpcms.sourceforge.net/cms.php/) - looks good for small scenarios

Blogs:
`````
* WordPress (http://wordpress.org/) - semantic, standards compliant, Eric Meyer uses it so it has to be good ;)
* Serendipity (http://www.s9y.org/) - gets good reviews, but let's face it - not used by eric

Gallerys:
```````
* Gallery (http://gallery.menalto.com/) - a biggy, used a lot
* Coppermine (http://coppermine.sourceforge.net/) - another biggy,
* Singapore (http://singapore.sourceforge.net/) - recommended by minimalists, a small time program that may be a sleeper

[Jeff]

I've never tried either of the forums you mentioned. I like IPB well enough to pay the $50 or $60 yearly license fee. I miss the free version very much. :(

Of Mambo, Xoops and phpnuke, I prefer Mambo, because it has the best looking front-end and the most intuitively designed backend.

For Blogs, I prefer using a Blogger account and publishing to HostPC. IMHO, the extra functionality that Blogger provides (post-by-email, tons of RSS support, comment spam tools) these days beats riding herd over a batch of unruly plug-ins in a server-side solution.

For a gallery, I prefer Gallery, because of all of the client-side support for uploading available.

[dbmasters]

I prefer mine. :D

which is now in alpha testing by the way.

[Joe]

HostPC will soon be converting to dbmasters CMS, once it's released.

I know Dan, and I know his finished products. I'm sure this will be better than those :)

Seriously, I'm betting on stellar performance from another one of Dan's scripts!

[dbmasters]

:: aw shucks ::

you're makin me blush :-)

[danw]

If being written in PHP isn't a requirement, I have to recommend Movable Type.

[caddickj]

db, I just saw the news about your alpha release late last night! Woo Hoo!

Can't wait for the final version.

[dbmasters]

be risky, try the alpha, live on the edge :)

actually, the alpha is suprisingly stable, having pretty darn good luck so far.

[tnas]

Don't you just love it when you are getting to the end of a big programming beta, and somebody just has to tell you that your install.txt has "maangement" in it (just above the "THANK YOU")? :rolleyes:

I'm going to be risky and give it a try!

[dbmasters]

hehehe, true.

Not that that has ever happened to ME though, but I've heard stories :rolleyes:

hehehe

[skidawg]

Has anyone used any of the other forum scripts that are available through Installatron? If so, what did you think of them? I have a current client that is using phpBB (in a password protected directory), but with all the security breaches in it lately, I am thinking of trying something different.

The others listed in installatron are:
Simple Machines Forum (http://www.simplemachines.org/_
XMB Forum (http://www.xmbforum.com/)

[D9r]

First let me say "Of course we all know the dbmasters CMS is best. That goes without saying. What I meant to ask was, which CMS is second best."

Jeff, thanks for your suggestions. I haven't used a portal or gallery, but I was leaning towards choosing Mambo and Gallery, so it's helpful to know someone else agrees with me.

skidawg, the only forum I've used is punBB, which I like. Of the 2 you list, Simple Machines gets high reviews at opensourceCMS.

[dbmasters]

OK, then, as long as THAT is understood! :lol:

Joe choked once when I mentioned PunBB, not exactly sure why or what was meant by it, but I took it to mean he didn't like something about it. I like the light weightedness of it. I like it second best.

[D9r]

As a low-resource choice PunBB seems pretty good. The latest version - 1.2.1 - is valid xhtml with minimal tables, so it loads even quicker and is easier to modify using the stylesheet. And there are mods/plugins in the works for PM, easy edit buttons, and the like. I like it because it's easy to work with the code in order to integrate and customize.

Regarding the Portals:
````````````````````
Mambo -
Jeff likes it, and jmikec at Hiveminds likes it => that's 2 votes

Xoops -
extensible, object-oriented: those are impressive buzz words
the basic layout looks good, the themes are nice, the community seems friendly

phpNuke -
They charge $10, so doesn't that mean it's good?
they seem a bit commercial, although that isn't necessarily bad
their homepage doesn't look impressive, but I've seen other sites using phpnuke that look very nice

[caddickj]

I don't have any deep knowledge of either Xoops or Mambo, but I did install and mess with both of them earlier this year. I almost went with Mambo, because it was a little easier to admin, but then I dropped it because I still got confused.

But I also didn't have anything important to do with them, so I wasn't trying too hard either.

So.... I guess I really have nothing to say... :unsure: Glad I could be of help... lol

[D9r]

Originally posted by caddickj@Feb 17 2005, 06:44 PM
I almost went with Mambo, because it was a little easier to admin, but then I dropped it because I still got confused.

Quoted post

That should probably count as a vote for Mambo, because you thought it was easier to admin.

You know -- I don't have anything important to do with these either. I just thought I should try them out and become familiar with them for experience's sake. And I might even learn a little PHP along the way.

[D9r]

Originally posted by danw@Feb 16 2005, 10:22 AM
If being written in PHP isn't a requirement, I have to recommend Movable Type.
Quoted post

Is Movable Type written in Perl?

[danw]

Originally posted by D9r+Feb 18 2005, 10:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(D9r @ Feb 18 2005, 10:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-danw@Feb 16 2005, 10:22 AM
If being written in PHP isn't a requirement, I have to recommend Movable Type.
Quoted post

Is Movable Type written in Perl?
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
Yes.

[dbmasters]

Does it use MySQL or the flatfile type crap?

Whatever you do, do not use any "database" system who's database is a simple text file being written to...serious resource usage, mysql is far more efficient, the other peeps on your server will thank you for it . ;)

[D9r]

dbmasters, how much and what does your cms do? I'm thinking I should take a look at it because it's probably a good code sample for me to study and learn from.

At this point the ones I'm planning to study are:
* WordPress
* punBB
* Mambo
* Xoops
* Gallery
* dbmasters

[dbmasters]

Mine does, well...uuummmm, lots of stuff that they all do, typical content management, with a slew of modules for specialized tatsks such as news publishing and blogging, a message forum, user management, multi-tiered admin privledges, photo gallery and catalog...which are primative as of now but have worked for a few people, links directory, search engine, people directory, contact form automation, RSS feed reading, newsletter broadcasting, guestbook...lots of stuff...

just added was an optional feature to add remote content via iframe pages.

The one thing, as many people have heard me say, that sets mine apparant from most CMS's is the fact it pays special attention to search engine optimization by allowing customizable browser titlebar and meta description content, meta keyword and seriously limits the necessary querystrings in the URL's to make it the most customizable CMS possible for the purposes of SEO.

It's being pretty well recieved by the testers and the first release candidate will come out this weekend. Just go friggin try it. http://scripts.dbmasters.net/ :D

[thevillageinn]

It's definitely worth a download and installation.

As usual, the script is quite easy and very straightforward to set up. Adding content is easy and clear as well. The thing I really like about CMS and now CM is that it's not so filled with useless modules and excessive permissions levels, you don't have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to find your way back out into the day light.

Did db mention the forum? He's added a simple user forum to the new product as well. Oh, yes, he did, well it's working well too!

Seriously, I think it's the most powerful, most down to earth CMS I've seen. My beta site is: http://www.milepost29.com

The only thing it doesn't have is a clever name - there was talk but I don't know what happened.

[dbmasters]

Thanks much village, I appreciate the kind words!

And yeah, I need a better name for it, the forum was tossing around some good ones.

[D9r]

I did download the CMS about a year ago, but never installed it (lot of good that did me, huh?). Seeing milepost29.com as a sample install of the newly named CM helps me understand more of what it's about. I'll definitely give it a test run. I don't have any immediate plans to use something like this for clients because I'm tending more towards designing fully custom sites - maybe when the right situation comes along. Mainly, I'm looking for examples of well-written code that I can use to add features to my sites little-by-little (such as a commenting system all by itself - like the one at php.net), and learn more about programming in the process.

[thevillageinn]

another thing to remember is that the CMS can be customized quite extensively thanks to it's 'theme' setup. I haven't done any customization personally, but have thought about it and may do a bit for a future site in the works. The advantage of the CMS or CM in this case is that it's trivial to add or change pages, so once you've set up a design that works, plugging in the 'meat' of the site is a breeze.

[dbmasters]

This CM was developed primarily by the needs of my clients, D9r.

As a client has a new request, I simply add a new "module" if the request seems like something that could be appreciated by others...in the future there will be a property listings module and an automobile listings module as I have had to build some for clients...this system works great for clients as they all see it as a custom job, and really it is, so it's often just a matter of doing what thevillageinn says and customizing the theme, then, powering up the modules they need for their purposes and badabing badaboom, instant web site :)

[D9r]

It sounds like you're saying the CM/CMS can be used inside any conceivable site design and layout. I see how that can be done. Why doesn't everybody do that then?

[dbmasters]

:: dbmasters shrugs ::

uuuummmm, I dunno...

Obviously there are always issues that may make it harder or easier to do, some people have wacky ideas of what they want their web site to be...what to look like and how to work, many people have never heard of that new-fangled "usability" idea...so, well, every job is different, but a decent CMS system thats easy to customize and easy to add on to is a GREAT place to start...

[D9r]

And why is the sky blue?

[dbmasters]

Light is a kind of energy that can travel through space. Light from the sun or a light bulb looks white, but it is really a mixture of many colors. The colors in white light are red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet. You can see these colors when you look at a rainbow in the sky.

The sky is filled with air. Air is a mixture of tiny gas molecules and small bits of solid stuff, like dust.

As sunlight goes through the air, it bumps into the molecules and dust. When light hits a gas molecule, it may bounce off in a different direction. Some colors of light, like red and orange, pass straight through the air. But most of the blue light bounces off in all directions. In this way, the blue light gets scattered all around the sky.

When you look up, some of this blue light reaches your eyes from all over the sky. Since you see blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

[D9r]

Good job, dude. Did you look that up just now, or have you answered that question before? Great answer.

[dbmasters]

Actually, I knew the answer, but I did a quick google-wacking to find a better explination :D

[D9r]

I should have known better than to have asked that question. I know how geeks think - ask them a technical question and they'll give you a technical answer. I walked right into that one.

I never heard the full explanation before, it's good stuff - it belongs in a list of FAQs.

[dbmasters]

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, client and CMS's.

I have found that most clients, at the most basic level, all want pretty much the same thing on their web site...I bunch of generic pages like "About us", "Contact Us", pages about their products and junk like that, in addition many want news publishing for things such as press releases, and sometimes calendar of events for trade shows, new product releases, investor meetings, etc...and if for internal use, such as an intranet, people directories are also needed...

So really, the differences are only in the layout, color schemes, logo's and crap. So to me, the best CMS is the one that allows the easiest customization of their themes, and that is where many CMS's fall short, using complex theming schemes, or goofy web based template customizing tools with proprietary coding markups to insert global elements such as nav bars and stuff.

That's much of the reason I went to building my own, cuz I got frustrated trying to figure out some of the sloppy, pieced-together CMS tools that are just hard to figure out. Mine, make no mistake, I built for me, and the partner that came on board to help builds it for him (yeah, we do get into arguments now and then too). We have found others like it, which is great, but it wasn't the goal, it's just a happy accident of the project.

I will in no way claim that mine is the be-all-end-all of CMS's, cuz it certainly has it's drawbacks, but I will say this, the newest version in testing is a HUGE step, and v2, with the plans we have in mind, some of which are already implemented on dev sites, will put it up well against any...I think...what it may lack in one area it can more than make up for in others.

[thevillageinn]

I'll add another thing that db's cms has over it's competition that I've found.

That is a very down to earth, helpful support forum. Whether it's db or his partner or anyone else who are answering questions - there isn't a lot of attitude or holier-than-thou-RTFM responses like you find in other communities. That makes it a pleasure to help when able and ask for help when it's needed.

[D9r]

Originally posted by dbmasters@May 5 2005, 10:50 AM
Mine does, well...uuummmm, lots of stuff that they all do, typical content management, with a slew of modules for specialized tatsks such as ..............

just added was an optional feature to add remote content via iframe pages.

http://scripts.dbmasters.net/ :D
Quoted post


Where can I learn how to work with iframes? Can you point me to a good tutorial? Is it easy to figure out by reading the HTML manual at W3.org? Is it simple enough that you can just tell me? Is there a trick to it or is it easy.

[dbmasters]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=using...G=Google+Search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=using+iframes&btnG=Google+Search)

[D9r]

This looks like a good reference --- http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/special/iframe.html
But I always seem to do better going to the source, so back I went --- http://www.w3.org/

I saw vague references to Object as an alternative to Iframes. Objects weren't cross-browser compatible a few years ago so I'm going to assume they won't work now either.

Second of all, I need to know what DTD is required. From reading at w3c I see that iframes are different from frames in that they don't require the Frameset DTD like regular frames do. That's good to know. The following 3-flavor description suggests otherwise:* XHTML 1.0 Strict - Use this when you want really clean structural mark-up, free of any markup associated with layout. Use this together with W3C's Cascading Style Sheet language (CSS) to get the font, color, and layout effects you want.

* XHTML 1.0 Transitional - Many people writing Web pages for the general public to access might want to use this flavor of XHTML 1.0. The idea is to take advantage of XHTML features including style sheets but nonetheless to make small adjustments to your markup for the benefit of those viewing your pages with older browsers which can't understand style sheets. These include using the body element with bgcolor, text and link attributes.

* XHTML 1.0 Frameset - Use this when you want to use Frames to partition the browser window into two or more frames.

http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/#xhtml1

I had to find it in the DTD innards:
* XHTML-1.0-Transitional --- http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dt....0-Transitional (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Transitional)
* iframes --- http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtde...onal.dtd_iframe (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#dtdentry_xhtml1-transitional.dtd_iframe)

Reading the DTD it looks like iframes won't work with Strict, but they are listed for XHTML-1.0-Transitional. I currently write for XHTML-1.0-Strict and would rather not switch to Transitional, but that's still better than having to go to XHTML-1.0-Frameset (I couldn't bear the stigma ;)).

So it ain't all that easy -- it does require a little bit of learning as it turns out. Couldn't coast through this one, no siree.