My personal, biased and completely unabashed opinion - if Radiant's not like Drupal, then everyone on the Radiant core team is definitely doing something right. I'd rather switch careers than make another go with Drupal.
The way I look at it - Radiant gets out of my way and let's me get things done. That's all I need. Just my opinion. On Jun 26, 2010, at 2:24 PM, mgutz <mario.l.gutier...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm trying to grasp what Radiant CMS is. I went through the demo. My > initial impression is that Radiant a page management system more > concerned with structure than content. In contrast, a CMS like Drupal > is focused on content. That is the basic unit of management is content > be it an artricle, product, blog entry, video clip, a recipe ... > > Radiant is focused on the developer who thinks in pages instead of the > end user who thinks in types of content. The markup supports this. > Most end users would be confused with liquid templates. In general, > the Ruby CMS I researched do the same thing with their own twist. I > wonder if any Ruby CMS will ever reach the status of Drupal because of > the difference in approach. That is not to say Drupal is the ultimate > CMS. > > There are times when I want to create a page in Drupal and life would > be easier if Drupal behaved like Radiant. Is the lesson learned to not > put everything in one admin and mix concerns? How about a separate > admin area for end users where, for example, a blog entry is nothing > more than one or more paragraphs. The existing admin would be used by > developers and designers to create layouts and page prototypes which > can be selected by end users. > > Does this make sense at all?
