I am setting up a web site for a football club and I am wondering which CMS to use.
I am a developer but I am doing this as a favour to a friend and would rather grab something with modules in it (registration, events, calendar, etc.) already. I need to be able to customise it but I had a look around and Wordpress looks like a blogging tool. I am wondering if anyone has experience with the above or any others and if you could shed some light. Thanks
The Major benefit of DotNetNuke is that you will be programming in .Net with all the tools that go with that. And the db is of course, SQL Server.
So if you are a MS guy, then DNN is a good option.
Day Of DotNetNuke is on in Europe this Friday and we will some slides which demonstrate how to use Telerik and sqlDataSource to build modules in minutes. These use Telerik grids to give you CRUD functionality in two simple files. Drop in to Paris if you are free, otherwise, visit the site next week and you can get the slides and some sample code, or else contact me and I will send them to you,
PS. Not sure why, but you will enjoy working on DNN.
good luck and enjoy.
Mark
I can't speak to the current relative merits of the different tools, as it's been a couple of years since I did a comparative evaluation of Drupal, Joomla, WordPress (and 40+ others).
But, I can testify that Drupal would be a good solution for almost any club website.
Out of the box - or with the installation of a commonly used module or three - you could set up:
Recent News
Upcoming events (Calendar)
Blogs (for the club President, Treasurer, other officers, team captains, etc etc)
Media such as podcasts, videos, etc
Of course, all this is optional. There's heaps of documentation online at http://www.drupal.org covering all this kind of thing.
The key point to take away is this: With Drupal, the challenge your friend will face with the website is "what to say" not "How to make it work".
It depends how well-versed you are in a particular CMS for example Joomal or Drupal or some other. If you can customize the things easily and be able to modify the CMS as per your needs, you should go with that one as both Joomla and Drupal have big list of extensions to their name. You should have advanced programming concepts especially OOP when it comes to customizing the CMS. The other option is to create everything from scratch on your own. In the end, I would prefer Joomla over Drupal.
If you have no experience at all with any CMS, I suggest you Joomla to start with. It is easier to learn and probably enough to manage a football club sites. It is also easier setting a Calendar, Event System and Photo Gallery. Drupal is more flexible, it has great user permission control, but it is a bit more complex.
Liferay Portal also has the features you need.
Quick and easy to set up with registration, Calendar ootb. it will be easy for your friend to admin in the future
Related
I want to use some ASP.NET based CMS for creating my website and don't know which to choose...
I begin it in Sitefinity, but with it very hard to manage code as you want... And it generates ASP.NET WebForms code...
Now I heard about Orchard, which is CMS developed by some Microsoft employers, and is ASP.NET MVC 3 based...
Now I have some questions about that
What advantages have Sitefinity against Orchard?
Is there any issues and bugs with using Orchard? Is it comfortable
to use?
If you have any other suggestions about using other CMS, I will be pleased)))
full disclosure: I work for telerik, the company that makes Sitefinity, but these opinions are based on my own experiences with both platforms.
as is often the case, it really depends on a) your needs b) your environment and c) your abilities
Sitefinity is uses asp.net webforms so indeed that is the paradigm behind its pages and controls. This has the advantage that if you are experience with ASP.NET, you've already got a lot of the skills needed to customize and extend Sitefinity. Templates are simply master pages, widgets are simply ascx user controls, and themes are standard asp.net themes.
Orchard follows a parallel of this approach, but as you said, in the MVC world. It makes use of views, layouts, controllers, and other mvc patterns as its foundation. If you're strong with asp.net MVC, it can be a pretty solid platform.
As Mystere Man pointed out, it is relatively new CMS, and I might add seems to be mostly community based. When trying to figure things out in a project I was working on, I felt like I was at the mercy of whatever developer created that one component of the platform and whenver he or she had time to respond.
On the other hand, one of the many advantages of going with Sitefinity is the excellent support you get from Telerik, as well as an active community forum.
Sitefinity is also ramping up its release schedule, with major point releases coming three times a year as well as service packs in between to improve performance and constantly add new features, always based on feedback from customers.
Ultimately, it is always going to come down to your own experience and what is a best fit for all people involved. A site can have any number of involved people, from developers to designers to content writers and of course your visitors. Try each product and think about how each role will interact with the system, and see which feature set best aligns with your needs on all fronts.
hope this was helpful!
No fully featured CMS is going to be "easy" to program. They might have easy modes that let you color inside the lines, but as soon as you want to do something they didn't account for it gets very hard.
Orchard is a fine CMS, although it's not as mature as many others. You can create your own MVC based sites to go inside it. However, extending Orchard beyond the trivial becomes complex quickly (althought you can do a lot with the trivial).
It's extremely simple to install and use. I'd suggest doing it and playing around with it, also look at the developer pages on the web site.
I have only worked with Sitefinity 3.7. To be honest, and even despite the support from Telerik, I found it extremely difficult to use, once you went beyond the basics.
As regards Orchard, I agree wholeheartedly with Josh that the support is the big issue. Bertrand Le Roy will answer your questions once a day on Stackoverflow, sometimes very briefly. Over 3 or 4 days, you get to the bottom of the problem, but support is something that Orchard needs to improve on, despite Bertrand Le Roy's good will. So with Orchard you are in at the deep end.
The other downside to Orchard is that it has a very poor user interface for the END USER who isn't a programming geek. A programmer can cope with layers and zones and working with lots of them in lists. Ie, Sitefinity is MUCH more WYSIWYG and, I would say, better for the END USER.
For a programmer, however, I find Orchard, despite the minimal support, MUCH easier than Sitefinity.
Two examples of the differences between the two CMS:
Menus.
Sitefinity is great, because you have a drag and drop treeview to organise your pages, and this reflects instantly in the menu.
Orchard says they will have a built in hierarchical menu in version 1.5. However, you have to work with entering pages into a form, rather than having a graphical drag and drop situation like in Sitefinity.
Pages.
Again, in Sitefinity, you just drag and drop controls onto the page.
In Orchard, you have to configure layers and widgets in a VERY geeky (to an END USER) way.
Also, if for example, you have a site where each page is has a custom header image, plus custom content in left and right columns, then you are going to need a layer for each page that has these extra custom pieces. (Orchard "pages" only allow you one block of content). This can be a nightmare for anyone but the most geeky.
FEEDBACK from USERS:
I developed two Sitefinity 3.7 sites. One for someone with experience with WordPress, another for a couple who run a travel agency and were very IT challenged. I don't get any feedback from our users. Which is the best feed back you can get. Just look at one of the sites (the IT challenged couple):
PrestonReid
We set it up for them over 3 years ago, and haven't heard from them since. ALL the content is input by them.
If we had done the job with Orchard, we would regularly be setting up layers and widgets for them.
MY SUMMARY:
I really like Orchard. I find it easy to use as a programmer. It is a nightmare (I think) for the end user, but if you write a few modules, most of the obstacles are overcome.
For example, I have written a module called Wingspan.Views (not on the gallery at time of writing) that allows for 3 extra editors on each "page" or view as I have called them: one for a Main Image, one for Right Content and one for left content. You also have the plain old Body part to provide the main content. Menus are still a problem I am working on.
We will use Orchard for clients that we have continued involvement with, so we can set up the layers and widgets that are needed. We will develop funcitonality (modules) that will be as complex as the client needs and can afford.
For the IT challenged type of client, we will use Sitefinity 3.7. We will refuse jobs in Sitefinity if complex extra functionality needs to be developed.
NOTE:
One of the best bits of functionality in Orchard is the Shape Tracing tool. Not sure if Sitefinity has something similar.
SO WHAT IS ORCHARD AND WHERE IS IT HEADING?:
Orchard is open source and seems sponsored by Microsoft. As in I think Bertrand Le Roy is paid by Microsoft.
From reading blogs, etc, the idea is to provide code that can be used by other MS partners, eg, DotNetNuke.
To really zing, Orchard needs a MUCH more graphical user interface, otherwise End Users are going to find it way too geeky.
Which is a shame, because for a programmer, it is a great tool that is easy to work with and to configure.
The best way to describe Orchard is that the core works, but the rest of it, the interface is missing. You shouldn't have to edit XML files to configure where content is placed on a page. Ironically, the Orchard team thinks it is more important to automatically download and install modules than it is to provide decent content configuration and creation tools. It seems more like a project to demonstrate .NET's flexibility than a real product.
Sitefinity on the other hand is a more complete and functional product with years of history behind it. The new version 5.1 supports ASP.NET MVC, which unlike Orchard, doesn't add additional complexity to it. Sitefinity's backend is very easy to use. As for customization, it's architecture is very .NET centric. They leveraged as much of .NET as they could, making it fairly easy to understand.
I can't recommend Sitefinity, however, over Orchard for three reasons:
The Library Manager imposes a versioning system and likes to store information in the database. You can change it to a file provider, but this only creates a file type with a GUID as a filename. Don't expect your graphic designer to update images using FTP.
The performance is horrible and I don't mean milliseconds. It can take several seconds for the site to respond to a request even after warm up! Telerik recommends that you cache everything, but this doesn't seem to help either.
If you must have MVC, find a sample MVC application and customize it to your liking. It is likely to be more performant than Sitefinity and easier to get your head around than Orchard since your wrote it. If you don't care about MVC, I would suggest looking at the latest version of Sitefinity 3.x. Unfortunately, there aren't very many good options available in the .NET space when in comes to CMS.
Recommend a free ASP.NET CMS that offers to build a website with features such as photo gallery, videos, events, mailing lists etc
The first two names that come to mind are mojoportal and dotnetnuke
Top 7 ASP.NET CMS Options are listed here.
For indepth insight, read DotnetNuke vs Kenticko vs Umbraco comparison also.
Oops, I just found out that I had asked a related question. May come handy.
Use Umbraco it is a very good CMS, have been using it for the past few month. even http://asp.net is made in umbraco
Edit
This might be interesting to:
http://webmasterformat.com/tools/cms
If, as your question suggests, you're looking to quickly build a site with off-the-shelf components, http://www.dotnetnuke.com/ would probably be your best option due to the sheer number of extensions that are available (see http://forge.dotnetnuke.com/ and http://www.snowcovered.com/, or your favourite search engine).
If you're planning to do a fair bit of custom development, then you may find http://umbraco.org/ more to your taste.
I will create a LMS site. But I don't know Is it possible in drupal? or in Joomla?
I want only these system core, And I don't need to a portal (I need to some page with my special theme, for admin, teachers and students and I don't need to these CMS pages).
Can I do my idea with Drupal? or with Joomla? Or I must start a new project from base??
(Sorry for my bad English)
Thanks ...
What do you need from the LMS and what CMS features do you need? Drupal or Joomla may be a stretch if you need full SCORM functionality and/or sophisticated LMS features. Moodle may be a better fit in that case.
It's very possible in either Drupal or Joomla. I personally like Drupal more than Joomla, and would encourage you to look in that direction. There is an actual tool called JoomlaLMS, which would probably give you a better out of the box solution, but you will have to shell out quite a bit of cash.
If you're willing to spend quite a bit of time building your own system in Drupal, you could have a very good free solution. You could also end up with a huge mess if you don't know your way around Drupal.
I'd go with Joomla. The reason is that Joomla is a much bigger project with many more people involved, so developers build many more addons, as Jimmy said. I was able to put together an impressive website, www.shattergames.com with a very limited amount of work, just because so much has been done with Joomla. That said, why not just use Moodle?
For about a year and a half I used Codeigniter to build my sites. Then a client begged me to build theirs in Wordpress. I soon found the joy of using a CMS (if Wordpress can be called that). So for about the last 8 months I have been using Wordpress as much as possible to buld my sites - I made the content fit the design.
Well, I began to grow very tired of the limitations of Wordpress - I needed more control and flexibility over my sites. So, I have recently started using Drupal 7 (not 6.x - I really like the admin panel).
After working with Drupal now for a little under two months - I have begun to feel like I'm using Stone Age Tools to build Space Age equipment.
So my question is: does Drupal get any better? Do you really have to use Views to display your content? Asking for help on the forums is just a shake better than asking a wall. I feel like to do anything requires a module. Why? Is one better off sticking to a framework?
"After working with Drupal now for a little under two months - I have begun to feel like I'm using Stone Age Tools to build Space Age equipment."
Well, my intiial reaction is that this is what you're going to feel like you're doing when you're working with Drupal 7, which isn't out of alpha yet. A good number of the folks who maintain modules haven't started upgrading to 7 yet, and that means that you're missing out on one of the great features of Drupal, which is it's wide and deep space of premade modules.
Try 6.
Do you need to use views to display all content? No, not at all. You can go in, create a new module, and write the sql and presentation that you want. Or you can find a module that will display things for you. Or, depending, you might be able to get the effect you want just by adjusting the theme you're using.
(As a side note, using an admin theme really pretties up the Drupal experience. I'm fond of rootcandy, although Rubik is nice too. Problem with Rubik is that it's not on drupal.org.)
The strength of Drupal is that by using modules, you don't have to re-write code that someone else has written - you can instead take that code and modify it (with hooks) to do what you want. This means you don't have to write an authentication/autherization system again - it's there in core. You don't need to write up openid handlers - it's in core. You don't need to write code to integrate with twitter directly - there's a module that contains an api that helps out. You don't have to write an xmlrpc server from scratch - you can use the services module.
You don't need to write a website from scratch. Instead, you can start with Drupal, add most of the functionality you need, and then spend your time making it fit what your client wants.
Firstly, you can install the Admin module to pretty up Drupal 6 admin. You don't have to use 7. 7 is still in alpha, by the way. Garland sucks, but, Garland is just a theme- its not 'the' admin itself. The Drupal admin can take the form of any Drupal theme, which is useful in its own right, depending on the use-case.
In Drupal, you can create content types clicking through the interface in Drupal 6 or 7. As far as I can see in WP3, you have to script it. A few clicks vs scripting, the choice for me is not hard there. The first way is a lot more efficient, and a task you can hand off to a non coder to get done.
You don't HAVE to use Views to display content.
You -can- use Views to make the display of content easier, by telling Drupal to gather data and provide a Page, Block, or Feed to display . This lets you create specific sections of content for areas of the site. Otherwise, you would have to create a node, and hijack its template, run a direct sql query yourself AND write the pager functions just to show something easy like the latest 10 "Press Releases" content type. Then, if someone added a new field to that content type, you have to update all that SQL code and display code. Views makes your life easier in that respect. In minutes you can flesh out site sections and arrange content in a myriad of ways. In Wordpress, this method of arranging content without functionality of Views is/was a modern nightmare and a reason I do not want to use it at all unless its a blog and nothing more.
The Drupal Support Forum is tricky. Not all modules are as active as say, Views or Pathauto (being two of the most popular modules). However, SO is also at your disposal. I answer a lot of Drupal questions here. The trick to the Forum there is you have to ask it in the right spot. True, sometimes you may have to wait a few days to get an answer, then again no one -owes- you an answer for a free product. Thats the nature of open source.
Every developer has their favorite modules to use with Drupal, and more often than not, its the same 20 or so modules. It depends on what you are doing, what you are trying to implement. It's not that 'everything needs a module' its that Drupal is such a vanilla install because Drupal does not want to assume your purpose nor overwhelm with options. The UX is something they are trying to improve anyway, and popular modules are making their way into core.
Well, I began to grow very tired of
the limitations of Wordpress - I
needed more control and flexibility
over my sites. So... I have recently
started using Drupal 7
Why not go back to CI? Drupal certainly has it's strengths, but I don't think Drupal will give you any more "control and flexibility" than Wordpress.
If the standard modules/plugins, themes/templates, from WP, Drupal, or Joomla, fill your needs, then using a CMS can be a lot faster than building a site from scratch. But, if those CMSs do not fill your needs, you could find yourself "fighting the framework" and never really getting what you want.
You're just coming out from WordPress, which has great support and is relatively easy to extend to overcome what you call its limitations, if you know basic PHP, HTML, CSS & JavaScript. Every framework has its own potential/limitations.
As a user of WordPress my humble opinion is that you should have stayed with it.
As of you last question, It depends, to stick with one and only one framework has its advantages and disadvantages, the best of all is that you get to know it very well and eventually learn how to extended it. The bad part is that very often frameworks lose popularity and you are left to you own without an active user community and support.
Regards.
All of the popular CMS products (I'd maybe add Expression Engine to the mix) are great for 80% of what you want to accomplish and a huge pain to handle the other 20%.
That's just the nature of the beast.
On the plus side, it's OS so there's lots of people hacking away at it just like you which opens up the potential for someone else already having invented the wheel.
And with bulky enterprise CM solutions like SharePoint I find that you have to reverse the equation to 20/80 (ugh!).
If you're discouraged with Drupal and prefer to stick with WP, WordPress has many thousands of plugins, including ones that can overcome the limitations you're running into and make WP behave more like a normal CMS.
Just do a Google search for "top Wordpress CMS plugins." There's a lot of articles out there that can recommend ways to get WP to do exactly what you want.
I'm going to be moving my website to a CMS in the coming months I'd I need some help on choosing an appropriate CMS. Many of the websites I've seen tend to say "use Drupal, hands down". However, my website truly doesn't have a need for commenting or community features. Its pages will need to be modified occasionally, but not extensively. My website will also consist of many programs, each with their own sub-pages and menus.
There are probably 25 people that will need access to the content on my website and will need the ability to update it.
I do like the idea of being able to tag and categorize the content, and the modular aspect of Drupal but is it really right for my website? If not, which CMS may fit my needs better?
It sounds like Drupal would be an excellent solution to your company's needs. I used to recommend WordPress for smaller, single-blog type sites, but now, even for those, I recommend Drupal because you can start small and scale up as your needs grow. It has a very dedicated community and there is a module for just about any need you may have.
I would agree with Drupal. The thing about Drupal is that you start out very small and add on as you need things. There is a ton of documentation, it is well coded, always being expanded on, good forum support, and free. It's the easiest to install, most problem free, and most maintainable CMS system I've seen so far.
You can turn Drupal commenting off with the press of a button, and if/when you decide to add onto your website, perhaps you want an ad rotator, more extensive user permissions, etc, etc, it is all already developed for you and ready to go.
I am not sure if Wordpress supports multiple users on a site.
The smallest you can go for a CMS is something like 10kCMS or the more popular TinyMCE
If it is something small I will go with WordPress as it is easily themed and extensible. There are a lot of community plugins and support. Their documentation is also fairly simple as they don't have a thousand of functions and stuff you need to remember and understand. With some creativity the basic functionality of WordPress is sufficient to solve almost all problems that might arise in small to mid-size website.
I also like Drupal, but you may consider Umbraco as well. http://umbraco.org/ I'd use Umbraco over Drupal if your team is stronger in .Net than PHP. (Really, I think that's a larger concern - what are your organization's strengths? Play to suit them. You are making a decision that will pave the way for many developers besides yourself, and business decisions of your company.) Both are extendable and open source so you can write your own modules/components to customize. It may be cleaner to import into Drupal tables than Umbraco, since it goes down to xslt files. (EDIT: This looks to be no longer the case in the new version - http://umbracohosting.com/umbraco-4---get-excited/one-cms-any-database) From a front end dev perspective, both offer great control of the final output.
From working on legacy stuff a lot, you may end up hiring interns to do the gruntwork. There's bound to be tons of inline tables and all sorts of un-reusable code in there, it may be easier to scrape the content manually and start w/clean markup for the content portions.