A Review and comparision of Content Management Systems
Review of Content Management SystemsHistory and Short List Of OpenSource CMSOpen source CMS systems appear attractive since they are free (except in terms of support) and they appear to come with a rich selection of functional modules. There are many (too many) of them, most derived or copied from Slashdot or PhpNuke. PhpNuke and its derivatives are sometime referred certainly to as slashclones - software packages designed to run sites that end up looking by default very much like the wildly successful tech-news site Slashdot (but ported to php). The point is that the Slashdot model - a webloggish front page with long spurs of commentary off each post, and many categories by which to organize the news - is adaptable to things that look much more like, well, that content that you want to manage (Ref: Mike Sugarbaker article) . BUT the slashdot and the phpNuke derivatives by and large share various features: - Designed by techies for use by techies
- Not very end user friendly for the person in the street
- Rudimentary if any workflow for content management
- Rudimentary content hierarchy
- Can give better support for community software (such as discussion groups) than commercial CMS's
- Often non existent or poor support for "Sub-sites" or multiple roles and authors.
This was the original php version, coded initially by Francisco Burzi in three weeks. But there have been a dozen or more break-aways (forks), some citing personality and control issues, plus a perceived undisciplined approach to bug tracking and testing. The most significant breakaway from phpNuke was PostNuke. But PostNuke itself then suffered from personality clashes and policy disagreements. The code base has become unmaintainable, with each new version introducing almost as many bugs as it fixed. The original PostNuke is limping along, but seems to have lost momentum and not to have any significant vision. There have been three significant breakaways from PostNuke: Envolution, Xaraya and Xoops (see below). Most took the view that a redesign from the ground up was called for, one difference being that Envolution continued to maintain the PostNuke code and an upgrade path pending their new release whilst others did not. Both Envolution and Xaraya now have betas available, that look promising, but neither yet (May 2003) has even the full set of functional modules that PostNuke had, let alone the "missing" CMS functionality. Most of the breakaways are so busy re-coding the core code that they have not really addressed the functional points listed above. While eNvolution is a fork of PostNuke, the entire core of the product is being replaced and improved, making it far more secure and stable, and able to work in high-volume environments with ease.
Some of the highlights of Envolution are: customization of all aspects of the website's appearance via templates, caching for faster page loads, user friendly administration via the configuration tools in the administration panel, support and a very active development community Xaraya is extensible, open source software written in PHP. Xaraya utilizes robust permissions, data management and multilingual systems to dynamically integrate and manage content (they claim).
Xaraya's modular, database independent architecture introduces tools which separate form, function, content, and design. Xaraya delivers the requisite infrastructure for a fully dynamic multi-platform Content Management Solution (CMS). XOOPS is a dynamic OO (Object Oriented) based open source portal script written in PHP and currently using MySQL. Xoops is an ideal tool for developing small to large dynamic community websites, intra company portals, corporate portals, weblogs and much more.
Includes a good integrated forum, but it seems they have not yet implemented professional content management with workflow etc (as opposed to News Stories). Xoops is probably the best of the bunch for pure "community" support with, eg: the ability to search for users by various criteria and send email and private messages to users through a template-based messaging system, There is an integrated Wiki. [Not actually a phpNuke Derivative]
From a review: "The best parts about Mambo are 1) its orientation towards distributing information and managing content (rather than focusing on reader opinions or an "online community"), 2) ease of use including setup and administration, 3) customizable architecture, 4) good administrative interface, and 5) publishing workflow including security. Many sites want to accept articles from contributors (users) but with the ability to review and edit them before publishing. The publishing workflow in Mambo makes this not only possible, but automated and easy. My biggest complaint is the rather superficial implementation of site-subsections." Plone and Zope are "different" from all the other products discussed. Zope itself is an open source application server for building content managements, intranets, portals, and custom applications. It is an integrated object based development environment with its own web server and database, though it can run on Apache or MSIE. Plone is an integrated CMS built on and for Zope. These systems are very powerful, but have a steep learning curve. The default style themes tend to be fine for Techie users, but not the best in usability terms for casual users, and it is by no means easy determining how to change them. You either love or loath them. PhpNuke Derivatives (short list) Product | Platform | Pros | Cons | phpNuke | php, MySQL | None v PostNuke | Code base unmaintainable. Nerdy image | PostNuke | php, MySQL | Usable, | But suffers from generic problems. | Envolution | php, MySQL | Good Arena Forum, based on phpBB Improved multi-sites promised | No good Content Mgmt yet | Mambo | php, MySQL | - Content creation workflow
- Sub-categories
- Forum (?email subscription).
| - But all users can see everything?
- Poor support for multi-sites?
- Some elements commercial
| Xaraya | php, MySQL | Clean start | Immature, no forums or Content Mgmt yet | Xoops | php, MySQL | - Object Oriented
- Good group permissions, user management (claimed)
- Worth a try?
| - Still Nuke clone???
- Weakish on Content Mgmt
| Plone | Zope | - Good workflow
- Discussion group
| Steep learning curve? |
Other Open Source SystemsThere are in fact many other slashdot and phpNuke derivatives, most sharing certain characteristics in varying degrees: Common Pros- Good for news articles or stories.
- Good for user interaction and community support (except that Friends may not be ready yet to use them properly)
- Good wide range of standard functional modules with a consistent look and feel, both for users and administration. These include Downloads, Reviews, FAQ etc etc.
- Wide range of third party functional modules.
- Tailorable visual themes
- Wide range of excellent integrated Discussion Groups, including versions of phpBB, Arena, SuperBB (ex Cyboards)
- Database abstraction layer (PHP-ADODB Compliant).
- Integrated navigation
- Integrated user database (though not particularly accessible without coding).
Common Cons- Dodgy code base, unless re-written in which case most systems are not yet mature enough, except possibly Xoops and Mamba.
- Weak content management, tends to be missing (Note BYM2002 uses Content Express module, which is just adequate but not suitable for big time use in BYM).:
- Permissions hard to use.
- Multi-site operation hard to set up.
Review of Other CMS SystemsProduct | Platform | Pros | Cons | Aegir CMS | php, MySQL | - Role based workflow
- Good content mgmt.
- Uses the Midgard engine
| No discussion groups! | Dcp-Portal | php, MySQL | | Yet another Nuke clone | Drupal | php, MySQL | Better Content Management than some. | Otherwise yet another Nuke clone. | e107 | php, MySQL | | Yet another Nuke clone | eZ publish | php, | Forums | Semi-commercial | FreeWPS | php, MySQL | | Immature | MySource | php, MySQL | Open source base Forums | Commercial add-on modules, inc Forum. Weak content mgmt (= a Nuke under the skin?) | OpenCMS | Java / XML, on Linux, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL | - Users and permissions
- Project based publishing
- Versioning
- Templates
| No discussion group? | php Website | | Appalachian State Uni | Student projects? | UCMS | | | Yet another PostNuke clone? |
Some of these seem to have taken the Open Source Nuke clone code, tidied it up and added their own proprietary extension modules or services. The purists decry this, but the suppliers are just trying to make a living.
Conclusion on Open Source SystemsMost of the Open Source systems are strong on "community" sites, with news and Forums, but weak on Content Management. But Friends have (yet) to take to heavy on-line community in a significant way. The best of the bunch are Xoops (for excellent community support) or Mambo (for good enough community support and better CMS workflow). Either would do for a simple site, but neither quite makes it for the full BYM requirements. We need corporate content management with full permissions, workflow, version control etc etc. [Mambo has this, but not with the full multi-site and multi-section support needed eg for BYM]. And then there is Zope / Plone, which could for the basis of a self-development system. But do we really want to go there? So it may be time to move on from the Open Source systems, unless there is something I have missed, although some of the newer re-writes may get there eventually, "Proper" Content Management SystemsThe following are "proper" content management systems, to varying extents, but many or most do not have discussion groups. Most are low-end commercial, costing from £1,000 up to £20,000, but bear in mind that there would be additional consultancy or tailoring costs. All worth a further look: Product | Platform | Pros | Cons | 13Amp Sparkplug | Coldfusion MX (but you can publish to HTML for static content, so no extra cost.) | - That's better,
- Very good commercial CMS,
- Templates
- Multi-site support
- Roles, workflow, versioning.
| - No discussion group
- Extensible manually only
- $500 or $1,000
- Needs Coldfusion MX
| Aegir CMS | php, MySQL | - Role based workflow
- Good content mgmt.
- Uses the Midgard engine
| No discussion groups! | Ariadne | php | | - Different!, Might be OK
- No discussion groups?
| CompleteContent | Javascript ASP?? | - Uses SW "patterns"
- XML based
- Good on publishing
| - No discussion groups?
- £20,000 initial
| HardCore Web Content Management | asp and php Any DB | - Create, publish, manage your website via templates, editor.
- Micro-site support (pro version).
| - Commercial: £100 to £1,000
- Community Add-on modules with user admin, discussion groups etc available in May/June 2003 at extra cost.
| immediacy | - Any server
- ASP/COM or JSP/EJB
- SQL2000, Oracle 8i
| - Clean, easy to use, mature
- Central XML content repository
| - £12,500
- Community support?
| OpenCMS | Java / XML, on Linux, Apache, Tomcat, MySQL | - Users and permissions
- Project based publishing
- Versioning
- Templates
- Module API
| No discussion group? | Plone | Zope | - Good workflow
- Discussion group
| Steep learning curve? | Terminal Four | | - Good workflow, publishing.
- Irish
| - No community support?
- Commercial, price?
- Community support?
|
For A Detailed up to date Review of Content Management Systems, Look at http://www.cmsinfo.org/
Community consensus on CMS Results of Feb 2002
Feb 3, 2002
|
1199 (19%) 
