Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I certainly hope it'll be fun. I'll be meeting a bunch of excellent people that probably won't make it to TPC and probably chatting a lot about CMSs and generally having lots of fun.

    I hope this conference will be somewhat akin to the Little Language conference that I read some of the Parrot folks attended. The CMS space is huge, fascinating, and frought with dozens of competing solutions, most of which don't do half of what they set out to. I'd love to exchange some experience and ideas with those

    --

    -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

    • The impression I got of commercial CMS from my short time at the WebBuilder conference in 2000 was that they cost arseloads of money and never do what people want. I can definitely see there being room for open source solutions, but the trick is in marketing--how to get the brutal truths of commercial software out in the public eye, so that open source software is obviously competitive?

      Zope was the big CMS hope, I think, and it seems to have peaked as far as I can tell. I can't wait to pick your brain a

      • Yes, most (all?) commercial CMSs are awful beasts that never work. Surprisingly enough, people seem to be aware of that (I guess it's because they get sufficiently in the way of getting one's work done that you can't ignore the fact that they don't work). Most of the CMS buyers face the buy vs build quandary because nothing will fit what they need exactly, but the solutions out there aren't really customizable.

        The brutal truths are already out there. I think the main problem is building a sane foun

        --

        -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

        • use Slash; # :-)
          • Hehe :-)

            Would you consider Slash a full-scope CMS (ie as in it can manage any content in any fashion through any interface, even for instance if it's not for web publication and various other things that aren't webcentric) or rather something targetted towards a more specific kind of website ?

            I mostly got the impression (from source and docs) that it was the latter instead of the former. I'm not saying that's bad -- hey, I'm using it ;-) -- but just not the focus of what I'm interested in. I'

            --

            -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]

            • It's certainly web-centric, but it is far beyond being for "a specific kind of website". See my pudge.net, where the primary Slash features are making football picks and viewing personal photos (via the Slash::Picks and Slash::Gallery plugins). It's become a general-purpose applications server, really, with bunches content management features.

              Of course, the most polished and included features are geared toward a "specific kind of website," but with the aforementioned plugins, and Autrijus' OurNet plugin (for connecting newsgroups and BBSes to Slash) and a Wiki plugin from chromatic, etc., it is becoming much more.

              Yes, it is web-centric. But aside from that ... it's pretty wide-open.