> 2) I'd prefer it if you had certain key phrases in bold, like: > "I have $30 invested in my 2 sites, and ****a whole bunch of time > figuring out the ins and outs of the software.***" > What is your time worth to work for someone else who wants a > commercial application? As a client, how many corners does it take to > have a developer who only wants the job done so s/he can leave you?
The time involved was to set up and configure the site. I had to learn how to set up an apache emulator (xampp) then I learned a bit about MySQL. Then I had to learn a whole bunch of stuff about the administrator interface and workflow. It was pretty brutal. My buddy, Gary Isse, from http://garyisse.com was thinking about it, but he decided it was easier for him to hand code another version than it was to move to joomla. I understand his argument, for sure, but could not make that decision myself. I could teach someone to administer Joomla in a few hours. As far as techie goes, I fit, but consider myself an advanced user, really, and not a programmer, which is why I gravitated towards Joomla. It was quite easy for me to understand. Much less techie than Drupal, and the other CMSs that I looked into. I agree though... If you are doing anything substantial and have capital investment, skip Joomla. It's not worth the savings in dollars, and is probably not robust enough for an enterprise solution. I've heard great things about Plone though, and seen some nice implementations, but I do not have the technical skills to implement it. Good luck with the project. Cheers, Ron Watson On the Web: http://pawsitivevybe.com http://k9disc.com http://k9disc.blip.tv On May 21, 2007, at 10:44 PM, Roxanne Darling wrote: > You guys are doing a great job of making my points for me! :-) > > 1) The very fact that you can research all of this and get it going > means you are a techie; client here is not. > > 2) I'd prefer it if you had certain key phrases in bold, like: > "I have $30 invested in my 2 sites, and ****a whole bunch of time > figuring out the ins and outs of the software.***" > What is your time worth to work for someone else who wants a > commercial application? As a client, how many corners does it take to > have a developer who only wants the job done so s/he can leave you? > > 3) No one has mentioned Expression Expression, which we think is the > ideal software for a multi-user, RSS-based, CMS - based on high > levels of security, ease of customization (for a developer, not a > client), extensive integration with its many modules (including a wiki > and a forum), a very active support and extensions forum, and so many > more features. The software costs a few hundred bucks, and that's a > definite hurdle for many do-it-yourselfers. But if you are building a > commercial application to make the client a lot of money, $200 is > utterly insignificant however the security, stability, and scalability > of the platform is not. > > http://www.expressionengine.com/ > > 4) Templates are nice unless the client wants to change the colors, or > column widths, or any other "little" details. This seemingly simple > task can be a real challenge, depending how well the template's CSS is > written and documented. It can take considerable time customizing > these things, while EE allows you to write your own CSS to get exactly > what you want. Lean, mean, flexible code! > > 5) A lot of this boils down to a distinction between a personal web > site built by a tech-savvy person and a commercial web-based > application for a third party. Those are two different development and > pricing structures IMO. > > Back to working on a proposal here myself... > > Aloha, > > Rox > > P.S. Dee: please let us know if you found this discussion helpful. > > On 5/21/07, Ron Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am running a couple of joomla sites: > > > > http://k9disc.com > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > > > I've also administrated Drupal. > > > > I find Drupal to require more coding and programming skills, a > better > > understanding of workflow and such, but I think that it is probably > > easier to administrate if you have the super geek skill set. > > > > On the other hand, Joomla is more user friendly to get set up and > > running, but you wind up with problems in getting exactly what you > > need done, done. > > > > I guess I am just repeating what Steve said here, really. > > > > The templates I am running on my sites are from Template Plazza > > ( http://templateplazza.com ), a template club that cost $30 for 6 > > months of access. I happen to like the look of them quite a bit, and > > made the decision to join the club on that alone. > > > > I also think that there are quite a few more usable modules out > there > > for Joomla than Drupal, but I guess I could be wrong about that. > > > > I'll continue to paraphrase Steve where he mentions that the > costs of > > development for Drupal seem to be in one off implementations (custom > > work) which cost serious dough, where as joomla seems to be a bit > > smaller scale on the costs, but nevertheless nickel and dime you. > > > > I have $30 invested in my 2 sites, and a whole bunch of time > figuring > > out the ins and outs of the software. > > > > At this point in time, I can get a Joomla/SMF/Virtuemart (online > > store) site off the ground - if I have a decent internet > connection - > > in just a few hours including basic content. It's quite simple. > > > > These 2 sites took 2 weeks to get running smoothly - creating > images, > > writing stories, troubleshooting, and uploading content. This would > > have been about 3 days, I would guess, if I didn't have to wait 30 > > seconds for each page to load. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ron Watson > > > > On the Web: > > http://pawsitivevybe.com > > http://k9disc.com > > http://k9disc.blip.tv > > > > > > On May 21, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > > > > > Theres tons of Joomla modules, many free ones, but certainly > there are > > > quite a lot of commercial ones out there too, especially media > > > handling ones. Same with templates, there are way more Joomla > > > templates out there than Drupal ones. So there may be more Joomla > > > developers out there than Drupal ones, and maybe there are more > > > commercial plugins because the market is perceived as much > larger. Its > > > also possible that commercial drupal options are more often custom > > > solutions written for a single client, and are not then sold to > the > > > masses for $ like people are doing with some Joomla modules. I > know > > > some drupal modules are 'sponsored' by companies and then released > > > back opensource to the community, which is good. > > > > > > The most annoying thing about the commercial Joomla modules is I > > > couldnt find an easy way to filter them out of joomla.orgs list of > > > addons, so many times Ive found an interesting-looking module that > > > then turns out to have a license I dont love, but never mind. > > > > > > The nature of the modules available on Joomla and Drupal can > sometimes > > > differ in other ways. There are more Joomla modules for > bridging to > > > other existing apps, which is very good for people who want to > glue > > > together disparate web apps into one site. Drupal has a more > puritan > > > approach, with many of its modules focusing on providing more > basic > > > building blocks that people will use to make a functional site. > Both > > > approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, can often find > much > > > more choice of modules for mashing up Joomla with other web apps, > > > sites, and services, at the expense of a clean elegant design, > things > > > can get messy behind the scenes. Whereas with drupal, things > are setup > > > to ensure that modules are more likely to work with eachother, > eg by > > > modules using the node system to store content, rather than > using a > > > totally seperate set of database tables or just being a basic > bridge > > > to a totally program, with just user tables shared. > > > > > > Both approaches will work really well for various different > sorts of > > > sites, I settled on Drupal as my preference because I assumed the > > > possile messes created by using loads of different Joomla modules > > > together, could eventually lead me into a nightmare dead-end, > despite > > > probably offering the ability to build interesting > functionality more > > > quickly than with drupal. > > > > > > All of these opensurce CMS systems, and indeed programming > frameworks > > > that arent a full CMS out of the box, worry me slightly in > terms of > > > scaleability and inefficient use of server resources, compared to > > > totally custom code written from scratch and so (hopefully) > optimised > > > for the specific site in question. But unless you are likely to > have > > > insane amounts of users from day one, they are usually more than > > > suffient for early versions of the site, and if things are a > raving > > > sucess you can always throw money at beefy servers and getting the > > > site remade. > > > > > > Security is a mixed bag. On the one hand with a framework or CMS > > > you've got other people to worry about finding & fixing > security flaws > > > , all you have to do is keep the system up to date, and not make > > > changes that break security. On the other hand, you lose 'security > > > through obscurity'. The more popular Joomla or Drupal or > whatever are, > > > the more of a target they become. Most attacks are random, scripts > > > searching for commonly exploitable versions of things running on > > > servers. phpbb would be an example of opensource software thats > free > > > and has a very large user base, and so has been targeted a lot > in the > > > past, often made easy if people dont update to the latest > version. I > > > havent followed whether exploits in drupal or joomla have also > been > > > exploited so ruthlessly at times, if I had to guess Id say > Joomla may > > > be more of a target. > > > > > > See although Joomla and Drupal offer similar things in many ways, > > > there is a definite difference in sorts of sites using them, > and some > > > of this is down to history. Some of Joomla's roots are more > with what > > > was sometimes called 'portal software', older popular systems > of the > > > time suck as phpnuke, postnuke and others. These were often > > > addons/partnered with messageboard/forum software, and the pre- > web 2.0 > > > era of content management. Times have changed quite a bit but its > > > still possible to see these origins are responsible for a lot > of the > > > differences betweek joomla and drupal, though Im not sure it > actually > > > matters or is useful to know this stuff, even though it loops back > > > round and helps explain why there are a lot more themes > available for > > > Joomla than Drupal. I would guess for example that a lot more > > > adolescents have installed Joomla than Drupal, and that gaming > clans > > > looking to knock up a quick community for their mates would > have been > > > more likely to use something like Joomla than drupal in the past, > > > although these days they may use services someone else provides > and > > > not need their own site. > > > > > > Theres a rather nice Drupal book out. http://www.drupalbook.com/ > > > Its called Pro Drupal Development, and a bulk of the contents > is only > > > needed if you want to touch drupal code, write modules etc. But it > > > does also do a lovely job of explaining the drupal node and > taxonomy > > > systems, as well as the lovely power of views. Unfortunately it > doesnt > > > detail the content construction kit much, its too new. CCK is a > real > > > great thing for people who are up for building customised content > > > types for their drupal site, without actually having to touch any > > > code. Theres probably some nice Joomla books too but I havent > looked > > > at Joomla for a while and should probably be considered biased > towards > > > drupal, especially as version 5 is so much nicer than when I first > > > looked at drupal. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Adrian Miles > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > around the 21/5/07 Stan Hirson, Sarah Jones mentioned about > > > > [videoblogging] Re: Joomla versus Zend PHP for Web 2.0 comm > that: > > > > >I am not a programmer or developer and came at this as a > > > documentary > > > > >film maker who needed something a bit more flexible than > blogging > > > > >software. I chose Joomla. If you want to see how I > integrated the > > > > >text and video, you can visit > > > > ><http://hestakaup.com.>http://hestakaup.com. You can do a lot > > > > >in Joomla without writing code and it is very easy to maintain. > > > I run > > > > >it on Dreamhost. > > > > > > > > I run some stuff on joomla, and work with others in some > stuff on > > > > drupal. I prefer drupal only because it is fully open source. > Joomla > > > > is open source but most of the modules (that I"ve found > anyway) cost > > > > $ and I don't have a budget. > > > > > > > > On the other hand I found joomla easier to get to a workable > > > point, I > > > > never quite understood the drupal content model (stories, > nodes etc) > > > > but that was from being in a hurry and not just spending a > few hours > > > > going through it properly. > > > > > > > > I have found a lot of people with drupal skills, less with > joomla, > > > > and most with joomla are making money while the drupal people > I have > > > > worked with are all building social software sites for > university > > > > backed research projects. > > > > > > > > Oh, and in my brief experience there seem to be many many more > > > > modules/plugins for drupal than joomla, drupal seems to have > a much > > > > more active user/developer community. > > > > -- > > > > cheers > > > > Adrian Miles > > > > this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] > > > > vogmae.net.au > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > -- > Roxanne Darling > "o ke kai" means "of the sea" in hawaiian > 808-384-5554 > http://www.twitter.com/roxannedarling > > http://www.beachwalks.tv > http://www.barefeetshop.com > http://www.barefeetstudios.com > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
