Get our Latest Finds
Subscribe to our RSS feed or enter your email address below to get the feed delivered to you by email:
Follow Gizmo
Using this Site
Top Rated
Gizmo's Freeware is Recruiting
We are currently looking for people with skills and/or interest in the following areas:
- Rootkit Scanner and Remover
- Web Browser for Android
If this sounds like you then click here for more details
Best Free CMS
 Go straight to the Quick Selection Guide |
|
Introduction
|
|
A website CMS (content management system or systems) is a server program that creates a website without any pages pre-existing on the server. It interacts with a database, and builds the pages on-the-fly when requested by a browser, using text and publishing instructions from the database. Images or other content are added into the resulting pages from the usual folders on the server, and the page layout is based on a template. As there are no pages on the server, there is normally a cache (a 'memory pool'), so that if a page has been requested recently it can be delivered directly from memory and does not need to be built again. Pages are normally built in a fraction of a second in any case. Why do I need a CMS ? A dynamic site has huge advantages, in fact far too many to list here. The core advantage is that content is separate from structure, and either can be changed rapidly and independently from the other (in other words you can change the site content, or its design and layout, with no effect on the other - in contrast to an HTML site). As far as practical features go, for example the site owner can edit page content live online or even create new pages, with changes going live instantly; site structure can be changed quickly; templates control the page appearance and can be changed rapidly or customized to suit; different managers can be given logins to control different aspects of the site; managers can be given logins to the site software admin and not the server admin; plugins are used to add functionality and features that would have taken days of coding before; and so on. The best-known dynamic sites, ie DB-driven ones, are CMS, forums, ecommerce / shopping carts and wikis. In the past, managing a dynamic site was a specialist job but now the software is much more usable. Disadvantages? Not many - they need decent hosting, and not all hosts actually know what they're doing. Not good where every page has a different layout involving complex artwork. A webmaster is definitely needed, to keep an eye on things. And, unless you are a CMS expert, you wouldn't use one for a site of less than 4 pages. Which is the best CMS ? CMS can be divided into groups, for different roles, so you first need to define your requirements and choose one from a suitable group. There are around 3,000 - so there's plenty of choice. The standard CMS type is called a 'brochure CMS', and is a full-feature online publishing tool. Virtually every CMS handles basic publishing tasks like creating an ordinary website with pages that have text and image content. The difference between them all, though, is how capable they are, what else they can do, and how they do it. Types of CMS
And as this isn't even the complete list, there are a lot of questions to be asked. How we will choose a CMS That cuts the choice down to a sensible number. We can now look at some CMS software that would suit some simple and obvious profiles:
* A 'brochure CMS' is the standard type that publishes content of various sorts in various ways, a full-feature publishing tool - which is an ordinary CMS. This done, we'll pick three to suit those profiles. There is no 'top pick' here because we're looking at some website CMS (aka WCMS) for different uses, so they are each right for their user profile. However, our three chosen CMS applications are my top picks in their class. CMS security note 1. A CMS is not a fit-and-forget solution, like a fridge or TV. It's more like a commercial truck, it needs someone to run a maintenance sked. A CMS needs a webmaster to handle upgrades and other security issues. You cannot install a CMS and leave it, like an HTML site, unless you don't care about the consequences. 2. Hosting - ie the quality of it - is a thousand times more important than with an HTML site. You pay the hosts for security above all else. If you cut costs here and end up with a less than competent host, your site can be exploited. 3. You should be especially careful with a new CMS or a new version of a CMS, since it is inevitable that there will be security issues that will need fast action from the webmaster. |
|
Discussion
|
|
WordPress is the leader in the micro-cms class for good reason: it's easy to install, use, and extend. If you simply need to get your pages online fast, then WP is the one. Up till recently there were a lot of arguments about whether this blog app was a CMS or not, and in the past the answer had to be no. But it's made huge strides and is now equally useful as a blog tool or a simple publishing tool, ie a micro-cms. With around the same sort of numbers of templates and plugins as Joomla (several thousand of each), it is probably more usable, almost as customisable - and far, far simpler. The install is dead easy, by FTP as per normal with these webapps, or even by using the Fantastico script installer that many hosts offer in your server control panel. This is the easiest option and should be taken if offered, even for experts. Just remember to choose to install it to the webroot, ie not in a directory, as it's the most efficient way (unless you have other webapps on the server, such as a forum or wiki - then you have to decide on some install options). WP is a standard PHP-MySQL webapp that runs on a LAMP server - the normal type of server. Any shared hosting will probably suit, and even some free webhosts will work fine with this. You can run on the default template but most choose a new one, and there are plenty of free choices. Make your choice mainly on the layout (page overall shape), not the colours, as they can be altered. A widgetised template is best, meaning that it will accept the WP modules, which display additional content items as in all CMS. You'll need the right set-up and plugins but there isn't space to go into that here, but this applies to all CMS in any case - and it means you must do your research and find more info. For a site showcase, with some nifty tempates, see: http://wordpress.org/showcase/ SEO, ie commercial success prospects, is good with WP. A lot depends on the template though, as some are poor and both wreck the code validation and introduce junk scripting and other sins. There are sufficient plugins for a good SEO solution. WordPress is so good now that it doesn't have many challengers for the best new user / lightweight CMS slot, but here are a selection:
Joomla is the #1 rich media publishing tool. It will suit most publishing tasks that don't involve much in the way of ACL (different groups who have view or edit rights to different pages). It's so good that there are no commercial challengers that come close - for example, there are about 100 plugins just for streaming media (YouTube vids etc). It is also the most flexible CMS around, and can be repurposed for a multitude of jobs - for example as a directory site, or an ecommerce CMS. It's a standard PHP-MySQL app for shared hosting - though it is more sensitive to incorrect server settings than most other server software. It's not a certainty that you can run Joomla on just any hosting, because of this. Everything in Joomla is done with plugins (of which there are around 10,000 or more, split between the various cms versions), so it's crucial to know which does what. The core application is strictly a framework on which to hang the vast range of free and commercial plugins that is unchallenged in capability in web applications. Because of Joomla's flexibility, it can be turned into an almost unrecognisable application: an ecommerce store, a video site, an online magazine, a file repository, a directory, and so on - ad infinitum it almost seems. There are some plugin issues for several reasons. These include the facts that Joomla has more than any other CMS; you can completely change the function and appearance of the CMS with them; and it is easier than most to extend, so lots and lots of people write plugins - some of whom have never heard of basic developer skills such as validating your pagecode as the first step, or taking care of security issues. This means there are some bad plugins out there. They are insecure; they wreck the pagecode validation; they interfere with other plugins. So you must choose wisely. Check the security section at Joomla central; install plugins in a logical sequence; validate the pagecode after installing each one; and check compatibility with other plugins each time. If you find you've installed a bad one, uninstall it and try a better one. Some users install a large number of major plugins that alter core functionality, and then find their technical knowledge is insufficient for them to be able to resolve the issues. If you go this route you need to be aware that a highly extended, complex WCMS may not be able to have issues resolved by an ordinary webmaster - but this applies to all capable CMS. It's simply that Joomla makes it all so easy that people can go too far and get caught out. Large numbers of major plugins plus very high traffic are probably not a brilliant idea - this profile requires another approach. Joomla handles high traffic well - there are numerous sites with 1 million visits plus and two terabytes of data bandwidth per month. However, high page numbers is another question, as the admin structure is not designed for this. At around 10,000 pages, things start to get interesting; the strong area is between around 50 and 1,000 pages. Templates are another very strong feature. There is an unbeatable choice, running to many thousands. They are very easy to customize and a different one can be used on every page if you wish, though that is not a normal choice. Joomla templating is the best in CMS - very easy to change, to customise, to experiment with. Documentation is very good, as this is one of the largest webapp projects in existence. There are numerous books, PDFs and web guides. It's said there have been 10 million downloads of this software. The forum on the central website has over 1,300 posts per day. There are several concurrent version series of Joomla and this needs some explanation:
All that is left to do is get rid of the old table-based code layout scheme (which was obsolete in 2003 and is therefore way past its sell-by date), and Joomla will be top class in all departments. Luckily the superb template system allows replacement of the steam-age tables with a clean divs + CSS layout. Overview Joomla will handle very high traffic. One instance on one very basic dedicated server with 1GB of RAM will handle over 30,000 visits per day, depending on the CMS set-up (more plugins, of greater complexity, will of course slow it down, and mean you need to go to multi-server earlier). Extending the server (more RAM is the critical factor) will get you up to 40k visits per day or more on one box. Over this number, you go to a load-balancing solution, and then of course you can handle any traffic you want. You might, if lucky, be able to handle up to 5,000 visits a day, for any type of site, on shared hosting of high quality, but over that you go to a dedicated server. My advice is to miss out VPS hosting (often used as a step-up between shared and dedicated hosting), as there are a multitude of issues - it's hard to find a good service with enough RAM that doesn't cost as much as a dedibox, so you might as well go straight to that as soon as your shared hosting CMS site starts to crack up under load. The funds should be there, by then. There are plenty of Joomla sites with over 1 million visits per month (33,000 a day), and some that burn 2 terabytes of bandwidth a month. That's high traffic. However, high traffic + high page numbers + many plugins can be troublesome, as every major plugin added will slow the site down. As it's so easy to add them in Joomla, this often affects large, busy sites. It just means you have to go to load-balancing earlier. A basic Joomla site is very clean and fast, server-wise - but as it's so easy to add plugins, there are few basic Joomla sites... Security SEO Joomla has always been the #1 CMS for SEO as it has always been easy to fix the issues with plugins, plus the native page code is very clean (all dynamic apps have SEO issues, the problem is how easy it is to fix them). All pages validate and should continue to do so whatever plugins or templates are used (if not, reject them). Code is clean, and the latest versions allow the template to override some core features to improve them (with vector-based code, for example). A huge range of SEO plugins allow you to whatever you could possibly want. Potential is superb though out of the box of course, it's lousy - but this is Joomla. Everything is done with plugins. Directly after install, you can maybe publish text and images, but not much else. Seeing as this is the most feature-capable and the most flexible CMS on the planet, that should give you a few clues: you need the right plugins. Choose well and you have a CMS that will place at Google #1 globally with no trouble at all, which is why Joomla is so popular for commercial web projects. The latest 1.7 version incorporates some of the code from Yannick Gaultier's sh404 plugin, so that now SEF URLS are possible without any plugin or htaccess file script. Note: they are not perhaps perfect, but the best Joomla core URLs seen yet by far - they have /index.php/ in the middle. However, I have proved with a 4-year project that (a) perfect code is important to SEO and (b) an index.php in the middle of the URL is of no consequence (the test site has hardly any links, has an index.php in the URLs, and beats 100 million other pages on tough terms). Other contenders in this class are: None of these are anywhere near as capable as Joomla but may have better functionality in a particular area, such as ACL or high page numbers.
CMS terminology Intranets and Extranets An extranet is where remote locations and sites are connected, as with VPN connectivity. This is an enterprise-class CMS function. Scalability
Drupal is my choice for a CMS when you need reasonable ACL (access control levels/lists, ie multiple user groups). It's true that eZpublish and Plone are stronger in this area, but the server restrictions (or cost implications) rule them out for inclusion here. Drupal will supply all normal requirements in the ACL area. Its strong points are the ACL capability, stability, scalability, and solid reputation for trouble-free performance. As a standard PHP CMS, it can be installed remotely on any server. It is highly extensible, and a variety of distros are also available that package sets of modules and install a typical site profile such as an online magazine or a college site. The negatives aren't really negatives at all - they are simply areas where others perform better. Here, we have the relatively low number of plugins, including templates, that restricts both appearance and functionality to a certain extent. Next comes the very basic backend admin, which contributes to some usability issues in this area. Finally, and probably the biggest negative, the way that ACL capability has made many backend admin functions obtuse. However, these are simply areas in which others do better - and no other CMS in this class does them all better or we'd be looking at that instead. Drupal is the #1 choice in PHP-normal CMS with ACL. It handles high page numbers better than Joomla as the structure is better for this. High traffic is handled of course, but this is a hosting issue in reality. Keep in mind that this type of CMS is basically a PHP script, and there's not much stopping one of those from churning out tons of pages a second - if the load-balancing arrangements can support it. Multimedia capability depends on plugins, and they aren't present in sufficient numbers to allow wide and complete support. But Drupal has enough to do the usual jobs. There is a recurring quality factor in this project that means instead of lots of plugins and some being of low quality, there are less - but the quality is overall of a high standard. For example, three bridges are available for the vBulletin forum. Content categorisation is stronger in Drupal than for most CMS, due to the useful and interesting taxonomy. Using this function allows the stratification of content according to user-defined terms and classes. If the normal 3-level CMS content structure doesn't suit you (section / category / item), then Drupal will allow other methods. It also has built-in SEF URLs, which is a major strong point, especially as that removes the usual CMS issue of multiple addresses for the same page. Drupal is a fine business CMS, and a good small-enterprise CMS - but probably not a large enterprise-class CM system. That is because although it has good ACL and versioning, the other components necessary for this appellation are not present or good enough: workflows, audit trails etc. For this profile you would go to an extended eZpublish solution or Alfresco - and unless you are a CMS developer, costs will be appreciable. Documentation is good, with PDFs and books aplenty. Because of the widespread commercial use of Drupal, things are well organised here. SEO potential is good (now). In the past, with session IDs and all that palaver, things weren't so good. However, nothing moves faster than CMS projects right now, so what is true one year is completely wrong the next - just check forum posts on these subjects and you'll see that clearly enough; statements people made last year are well outdated now. Drupal is a good choice for an SEO-friendly CMS - not as good as Joomla, for practical reasons mainly, since in theory it's actually better. Drupal is a strong, straightforward CMS with good ACL. It isn't easy to use, though, since as soon as you add ACL into the mix, admin usability tends to go out of the window. At present its capabilities lie in the provision of a robust CMS with multi-group page and section ownerships; the useful taxonomy capabilities; and the general air of quality surrounding everything in this project. This is not a second-rate product, it is of the first quality. It scales really well, and is rock solid with high page numbers and heavy loads. In the future, the existence of more plugins will allow better functionality. We like Drupal - it's what we run Gizmo's Freeware on. With around 40,000 visitors a day and rising steadily, we need a solid solution. If I have one major criticism of Drupal, it's the templating system, which is notably poor compared to Joomla. Other CMS in this class are: |
|
Related Products and Links
|
|
You might want to check out these articles / sites too: www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-enterprise-cms.htm |
Can often be auto-installed by the host's cPanel script installer in 5 minutes.
Sensitive to incorrectly set-up servers. Works on a Windows server (IIS), but not very well.
Not for beginners. Chaotic central website mainly suits developers, not users.
|
Editor
|
|
This software category is maintained by volunteer editor Chris Price. In the computing area his interests include freeware / open-source software, website software, web usability for all, and web business management. Registered site visitors can contact Chris by clicking here. |
|
Tags
|
|
best free cms, best cms, free cms, wordpress joomla drupal comparison, cms reviews, choosing cms |
- Article type:
Printer-friendly version
Comments
This is a rather old article, so things have changed a lot. Wordpress and Drupal are still the most used CMS (wordpress being the first) but when it comes to ease of use, I would strongly recommend Concrete5 which was the fastest growing CMS community in 2011. Joomla is now really behind the others and we dont use it anymore.
Concrete5 latest version, 5.5.1 (january 2012) is awesome and brings in the best, really. It is superior to wordpress by a thousand mile for non-blogs sites, and it is superior to Drupal for small sites.
So if you need a small site (under 500 pages) go for Concrete5 (at www.concrete5.org)
If you need a blog go for Wordpress
If you need a big site go for Drupal
and if you need a big ecommerce shop go for Magento or Prestashop.
I'm not an affiliate of any of these tools, I have (and still am) using them all. 100% of my clients are quite happy with Concrete5 because they can learn how to use it in 2 hours.
Gil
Of course, Wordpress is a good system. Unfortunately the main focus is on blogging.
For setting up a small business website I would recommend:
http://www.cmsimple-xh.ch/en/
(backend available in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish)
Installation is even quicker then Wordpress. Writing and editing content is as easy as using e.g. MS Word. The edited page is directly displayed WISIWYG within the website.
it's not so bad yaar awesome !!
Which CMS is used for techsupportalert.com ?
Drupal.
Is this true?
If so, it would be interesting to hear why Drupal was chosen.
Whatever the reason, this is a wonderful site.
There are a number of reasons, something like this isn't a clear-cut choice though.
Drupal is the best choice if you want to minimise running costs and need a stock LAMP server CMS that is rock solid and has good ACL. It's tough on beginners, hard for intermediate CMS techs, but one of the easiest to run at this level of performance. Like many CMS neither the application code nor the xHTML pagecode are perfect, although the pagecode isn't bad at all. Templates have a big part to play. Actually the biggest drawback of all to Drupal is the templating and associated issues. This isn't too bad though, because most other CMS have far more issues, even the very good ones. Take EZ Publish and Plone for example, both good webapps but far more issues than Drupal and much harder to run.
People complain about every CMS under the sun, and the more installs there have been, the more complaints you get. But Drupal does the job and it's so solid, we have abused the hell out of it with a zillion heavy plugins (CCK etc) and all sorts of weird ACL rules, but it ran 45,000 visits a day on one basic 32-bit server with 1 or 2GB of RAM if I remember right, before we changed up!
High traffic, heavily extended, lots of pages - still solid. Not too hard to track down issues. Graceful shutdown when overloaded. Nice ACL. Useful out-of-the-box functionality such as the built-in SEF URLs, good versioning etc. Security is good, the only exploits we've had are where our own procedures weren't 100%. Standard PHP-MySQL stuff to fix any issues.
There are even server techs out there who can get over 100,000 visits a day out of Drupal on one box, and who have proved it. That's 3 million visits a month off one server. Try that with some other apps.
Hmm, reading what I just wrote there, it's a bit techy... Maybe all you needed to know is that it's a solid CMS that allows a variety of community input modes and has a long, safe history and is about as easy to run as anything in this class. It has drawbacks but less than any others that do this job.
Chris
Thanks for the quick and informative response.
I hear that Joomla 1.6 will greatly improve its ACL capabilities, so I might give that a try once it is released.
Yes, in theory J1.6 will fix the long-awaited Joomla no-ACL issue. J is brilliant for a single person or team, visuals are the best of any CMS, templating is excellent, it's so flexible, very easy to manage compared to some others - but no core ACL, and the plugins have their own issues.
J1.5 has some security issues unless it's patched religiously though; and no doubt 1.6 will bring its own problems. If it ever gets released of course, Joomla seems to have stalled, like SMF. J1.6 is 8 months late already, core team issues no doubt.
J2.0 seems a long way off right now, which means Joomla will still run on divs & tables pagecode for a long time to come, so that if J2.0 comes along in 2012 (which right now looks very optimistic), and as tables were obsolete for HTML page code by 2002, the pagecode will be ten years out of date by then. Luckily >J1.5 allows templates to override that and run pure divs & CSS otherwise people who need good code would have to go elsewhere. But you can build a J1.5 site to Accessibility AAA if you know what you're doing, and that's something that can't be done with many big-money commercial CMS as the quality is too poor.
Chris
Good article, but I have to admit I enjoyed reading the discussions even more :)
Edit: I was looking around and I stumbled on the following links, they have some useful information on the subject.
http://spyrestudios.com/free-content-management-systems/
http://visionwidget.com/toolz/8-web-development/110-free-cms-resources.html
~Yaser
Tough article to write. Tons of options. Good stab.
WordPress has come so amazingly far but probably at a huge cost to web as a whole. WordPress.org's most downloaded plug-ins include blog-botting, blog farming, spam botting etc.
Of course these days no one calls it spam -- now it's "affiliate marketing" or "search engine optimization" or "viral marketing."
Yes. It's interesting to see the forces ranged against a quality, free Internet versus those that fight to keep it of value. There is no way to stop the onward march of the destroyers, the trash, the censors and so on - just keep fighting for the right way.
chris.p
If you're after something really simple, try zimplit.
Thanks for this category. I have no training in web development, and hardly know any html, without dreamweaver I'm dead. However I have managed to develop a couple of sites using several different CMS. The 1st site used a set of Perl scripts and was fun to learn and mod, due to a great support forum. That site achieved 1500 unique hits a day and had over 300 members in the forum. I later played with several CMS including e107, Drupal, Joomla, and basic flat HTML using templates. I currently have a game site for a gaming clan, which is based on phpBB & a cms/portal script for the front page, using the phpBB mysql db.
I am now unemployed and want to get serious about web development. I am interested in opencourse free college coarses on web development. Can anyone point me to a series or several courses that will give me the essentials to better my skills to achieve professional level website development.
Training courses is an area we are a bit short of material. I think you will have more luck if you post in the forum, more people read the threads there than do for this category.
Try the General Computer Support board. It's not really the right one but seems closer than anything else. The ChitChat board isn't going to be a lot of help.
I don't know if someone can help, or even if the forum Mods will move your post, but give it a try anyway. Make sure to create a good, relevant title for your post as that's half the battle in getting help on a forum. Maybe -
Looking for online Training Course in web development
chris.p
I actually prefer Textpattern as a lightweight CMS than Wordpress - a bit different in terms of them using Textile but once you get around it, it's pretty flexible.
Although it's more known and used in Europe, Typo3 is very powefull, secure, collaborative, capable to handle heavy load, therefore suitable for emterprise class utilization.
ImpressCMS is a free, rapidly growing cms with both power and ease for individuals, communities, companies and clubs... Each website page is built by a module which is installed with a click. Module extra functions, called "blocks" are placed by clicking to page and position you like it to appear. Very easy to customize design and lots of free themes around. 25 active developers, wide range of modules, all free (open source). Version 1.2 with many new features now beta. On suitable server (Apache, PHP and mySQL or latest XAMPP) it installs in ~30 minutes for newbies and ~10 min for experienced. http://community.impresscms.org/ //justanumber
In my experience, if you want a CMS with a light footprint, try CMS Made Simple (http://www.cmsmadesimple.org/). Its free, easy install, easily modifiable, well supported and can may good site quickly. I have used and run CMSMS, Joomla & Wordpress. Yes WP is good but if you do not rigorously update it is very vulnerable to hacking (as I have been). While Wordpress is widely recommended and used, its faults and holes leave it very open to abuse especially for those users not really "tech" minded. It is easily installed, but it has a HUGE footprint and can be overwhelming to manage for those wanting an easily setup and run website.
Thanks for your comment. It's an interesting debate, which out of CMS-MS or WP is the easier to run a site with.
My opinion is that for very simple material that needs to be up there fast, then WP is the answer. The trick is to find the right template, which isn't easy if you are trying to create an ordinary website look, too many of them are just obviously WP blog/cms sites.
But if you have more detailed needs, especially re. a custom template that doesn't look like it's a clone, then CMS-MS fits the bill. But I think it needs more time investment.
If the site is complex then either way will need a hefty time input, there are no simple ways to build a complex site. WP would be the fastest way to build a large but simple site, though.
As regards security, I think it is safe to say that every big cms or webapp in general has plenty of people saying it's vulnerable. The more sites out there, the more people saying it's vulnerable. CMS-MS has the least number (a tiny percentage of WP or Joomla for example) - so you don't hear much about exploits. But if CMS-MS had 10 million downloads like Joomla then the noise would be the same.
There is a very simple 4-point route to CMS security. If you don't follow it, your site WILL be hacked, no question. But if you follow it, with one of the big-name apps there is no reason at all why it will be exploited. All of them are secure if they have a webmaster. A webmaster is a person who does this:
1. Upgrade the app immediately a patch comes out. You need to be on the security bulletin list. A CMS is not like an HTML site.
2. Don't add insecure plugins, they will make the cms vulnerable. You just can't add anything you like.
3. Don't use cheap hosting for a cms, that is fatal. The hosts are the main security influence on a database-driven site, and security is the main thing you pay them for. If you don't pay them (much) then you'll get what you pay for. A dynamic site is IN NO WAY comparable to a flat site.
4. Don't use a new webapp, it cannot possibly be secure. It takes 2 full years to sort a new webapp. The devs can't find the holes, the web finds them. If you use a new cms version before 2 years is up, then you have to accept that you are on the bleeding edge and there is a chance of getting hacked.
The new Joomla version for example has got a terrible reputation for security, since there are millions of sites running it, half of them aren't patched as they were a fit-n-forget job, and it's too new to be secure. The old series is excellent though. No doubt when the new version gets to be stable, it will be equally OK. But while you have tons of sites out there with early versions of the new series, there will be endless stories of it being hacked. It's a shame, really, as in reality it's not the cms' fault, it's people who think there is some comparison to an HTML site, where you can just fit and forget. A CMS needs a webmaster, no getting away from that.
I guess from this it's obvious that I think many problems come from the fact that people seem to think there are some similarities between cms and HTML sites. There aren't. On a flat site you have web pages; on a cms site there are no pages, just fields in a database. Everything is different.
You get to like it though. Without a doubt it's the way of the future. But it's different - a cms is not like a fridge or an HTML website, you can't buy it, park it in a corner, and forget it. It does a thousand things more and better than a flat site but there is a price.
chris.p
Very interesting reviews and discussions. I'd have to agree that Wordpress is the easiest option when a CMS is appropriate.
This is a bit off-topic but maybe it could lead to a new category!.I'm an (occasional) developer creating straightforward hand-coded static sites where a CMS would be overkill. Are there any ready-made solutions that would allow the site owner to update delimited blocks of text in these kind of sites, and ideally images, using a simple browser-based editor. I think I can see how this could be done with PHP but unfortunately I have pretty much zero knowledge of server-side scripting. The only software of this type I've discovered so far is Flyspeck but I was wondering if there were any freeware alternatives.
ANONYMOUS WROTE: "Are there any ready-made solutions that would allow the site owner to update delimited blocks of text in these kind of sites, and ideally images, using a simple browser-based editor."
Two that come immediately to mind are EditWrx and Zimplit. If I think about it for a while, I'm sure I could think of a couple others because I've seen several of them of that particular type. (And I can't remember if EditWrx is still free, though Zimplit certainly is.)
If editing right on the page (rather than in the more common type of WYSIWYG interface that one tends to see in most CMSs these days), I'll tell you a CMS that you should take a look at, though, and that's Concrete5. It's by no means the best CMS out there, but if you like what either EditWrx or Zimplit do, then you'll find Concrete5 to be those, but on steroids. Watch its demo video and tell me you don't agree that it's at least conceptually one of the slickest CMS interfaces you've ever seen. Betcha' can't. That said, it may be overkill for what you've said you're interested in. If so, and if you're looking for something free, then I'd go with Zimplit... not that that's the best of breed, either... but it's darned good for the type (and I stress that word) of CMS that it's trying to be.
If you're looking for a very simple CMS -- simpler, even, than the likes of CMS Made Simple or Web Site Baker or any of the more user-friendly CMSs -- then I'd recommend either Light 'n Easy or the even lighter RazorCMS (which, if I recall, is a fork of the even lighter NanoCMS, which isn't, I believe, being developed anymore).
Another CMS getting a lot of attention all of a sudden -- especially from those who don't want to be bogged-down in the more technical aspects of a CMS, and who think of themselves more as designers or marketers -- is one called Impress Pages (not to be confused with Impress CMS... though that's a pretty good one, too... albeit likely more than you're looking for).
The last two that I'll mention, and which are both probably more than you're looking for, based on what you wrote, but which are getting talked about a lot as very simple and straightforward CMSs are Pluck and Pligg... with the former of the two being considered the far lightest and easiest; and the latter of the two being considered more full-featured (and the one that's being talked about more, between the two of them).
To try to list all of the interesting prospects in this category is ridiculous. However, you specified a level of simplicity that made it easier for me to make a few recommendations.
Hope that helps.
__________________________
Gregg L. DesElms
gregg [at] greggdeselms.com
Napa, California
Yep, I know what you mean, like Dreamweaver edit sections but for the client. Don't know about this, I just use cms for anything beyond the basic, now.
Maybe you should look at something like CMS-MadeSimple, it's a free-form cms framework like Umbraco or Radiant but simpler. You build your own page as the template, then you (or the client) can edit it, in the browser. I think you would be interested in this solution.
CMS-MS is about the most basic of these 'roll your own' systems and may be very close to what you need. RadiantCMS is a Ruby on Rails equivalent, a bit of a step up in complexity (if you need it). Outputs beautiful code, it's a really modern approach. Umbraco is the same for IIS, a blank-canvas cms that the developer builds. You need to be a whizz with XSLT to make the best use of this one though, you can bodge it with .NET but that isn't really doing justice to ASP. You can build a top-level enterprise cms with Umbraco but the dev does the whole thing, it's a blank page install, nothing there. If you are an ASP - XSLT ace it's right up your street. There are some trash sites done with .NET usercontrols though, that approach is much lower class.
Me, I'd start looking at this route in your position. 90% of business sites will go over to cms in one form or another. CMS in basic form = a flat site with user edits. It's up to you how far down that road you go. I can see the attraction of a 'blank install' cms from a dev's point of view - it means you can do anything, just as with a flat site - but the corollary is the dev must really know what they are about. 50 code fails on each page does not equal a good result...
chris.p
Indico o Plone/Zope
Sorry, never heard of Indico.
Plone is a great CMS but in the enterprise class and team LAN class, as it needs a dedicated server or a LAN Windows PC.
Like many CMS it is OS-agnostic, though they tend to work better on a LAMP box or an IIS box, depending.
It uses a middleware / application server app (Zope) and these can't be used on shared servers, so you have to use VPS hosting (which is a bad idea at least 50% of the time) or a dedibox.
Or if using it as a multi-team or large office documentation server CMS, which it does just fine, you can install it on a local Windows PC. For this usage profile you can run it within the office, for various teams, serving a private CMS, docs or whatever off a Windows box.
I certainly wouldn't use this setup for production (= a livesite, Net use) as it is terrible for security. Security is about 80% of the problem when talking about running a CMS, all the other issues are easily taken care of. You pay your web host primarily for security, that's what they are there for. Anyone can host a site - if you have a broadband connection you can actually host a site with very low traffic - but you need pros do to it properly.
Trying to host a website is like leaving a gun in a public place. It can only hurt others. You won't have a clue how to stop malware attacks on your server, and that will lead to others being infected due to your incompetence. You pay a webhost to stop your server being exploited. You can get free webhosting, or good hosting from $8 a year, so why anyone would want to try and home-host sites I don't know.
The only good reason I can think of is if you wish to study hosting seriously, and to get better at it. That sort of attitude requires that you install a Centos (or Fedora server) + Apache server, or Centos + Lighttpd, or Centos + Nginx. Or Ubuntu server though there are less resources for this option. Then sign up to the security bulletins from PHP, MySQL, Centos / Fedora, and Apache / Lightppd / Nginx. Then, maintain and patch your server on a daily basis. Or if you prefer the ASP - .NET - XSLT route then get Windows Server 2008 + IIS 7.0 and work with that instead, in the same way - with daily maintenance.
If you're not going to do that then please don't bother, you'll just hurt the rest of us. There are more DIY-hosted websites in China than anywhere else. There are more exploited and malware-infested websites in China than anywhere else.
Wordpress is a blogging software not a CMS. Another free program in the same class is b2evolutions. If you are talking CMS, then b2evolution is better.
Joomla the problem here is your sites looks amateurish if you do not buy a commercial template. Templates are difficult to write. So I suggest anyone doing a site with Joolma to buy one.
The best templates now, I think are
www[dot]shape5[dot].com
Also be warned Joomla never looks 100% unless you are willing to spend money with a consultant.
The big advantages of Joolma is that almost everywhere there is a user group for it. It also has an enormous amount of free stuff. Unfortunately almost all is useless. The other problem is that just about every function has a software that does it better then these components. Still there is much there and some of it is good. There are often some costs with some of the good stuff. I always read the users comments before downloading any of them.
Drupal I have had little contact with but it creates nicer websites. That is why I am looking into it now as I want to move away from Joolma.
Re WordPress
Yes, for a long time I thought, like you, that WP is not a CMS. And it wasn't. But it's different now, because they have made massive strides, and because of the vast number of plugins. This is crucial in CMS / dynamic webapps. About a year or so back I invented a new name for this class of CMS, which is not really a lightweight CMS as such but a development of a blog app: the 'micro-CMS' class. I think WP, Movable Type etc have every right (now) to be called a micro-cms. They do exactly what people want -- publish your stuff fast. And of course, if you want to go further with them, they will function as a good lightweight CMS, given plenty of time input and expertise. This is not for beginners though, I think. As an example, take a look at this site:
www[dot]logaholic[dot]com
This site is an attempt at using WP as a full-on CMS and succeeds well of course. I'm afraid that if you said this isn't a CMS, you'd demonstrably be wrong - obviously, it has many types of content, an integral support desk, etc. It's a CMS site - using WP. But there are two caveats here: the guy who built it is a very competent developer, and it's been three times as much work as using a real CMS.
Re. Joomla, I agree broadly with your comments. I think the main problem is that novices might expect they can publish a fabulous site with no previous knowledge. I don't know any way of creating an excellent, high-quality site, without some years of experience. But it's much easier if you keep it simple, of course. This is why WP is a very good choice for many people.
Drupal is very solid indeed but even less amenable to complex work by novices. I think it works best when you need good ACL. Otherwise, you will build a much better site with Joomla. It doesn't matter what tools you use, an expert gets far better results. I've seen Joomla sites that people have spent a very long time working on - and they look terrible and work badly. It's not the fault of the tools.
Another example of this is that you will read 'SEO experts' who say that Joomla is 'not very SEO-friendly'. But I have no problems at all putting Joomla sites at global #1 for tough terms. So who do you believe? :)
I suggest the best yardstick is to see what somebody can achieve who knows what they are doing. And maybe, use the simplest tool that you can, to get the result you need. Look what Chippendale could do with a few bits of wood, some nails, and a spokeshave.
chris.p
My sister comes to me and said she wants a site to host her resume, some articles she has written, some photos, a blog and her contact details. I wrote it in Joomla. The blog I had to give up in Joolma as it was too hard. I used b2evolutions. It was a nice site but it did not look professional. Now if you are telling me that someone has to really know Joolma and spend much time creating a site, then that is not what I am looking for in a CMS. I suspect many people here would agree with me.
I think you have to lay down some rules about what you are looking for in a CMS and maybe expand it to what many other people like me are looking for.
Yes, good points.
I think the best solution for your sister's material would be WordPress as you can customise that very well. Drupal will be going way too far in the wrong direction.
The role of the template in a dynamic webapp is huge. It's vastly under-rated. If the templates are there, you can achieve amazing results. I don't find the commonly-available Drupal templates very impressive, but Joomla is out of this world for templates. Of course, if you can get pro work done, Drupal templates are great - look at that Warner Bros site I used for the pic in the review.
And WP is good if you can locate the right one or modify something to suit. Look at that site I quoted above as a WP CMS site, you'd never believe that was on WP. All down to the template. With WP there are a lot of blog templates but it's much harder to find good CMS-style templates - but if you can do that, then WP is absolutely the best way to go if you have a basic publishing job to do. No question.
Any good sources of CMS-type templates for WordPress will be gratefully received, this is useful info.
chris.p
Post new comment