[SLUG] Geeklog and the Lug Website

[Jamie Adams]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Ian Eade @ IGM wrote:

> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:51:38 +0100
> From: "Ian Eade @ IGM" <ieade at igmwebdesign.info>
> Reply-To: scarborough at mailman.lug.org.uk
> To: scarborough at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Subject: RE: [SLUG] Geeklog and the Lug Website
>
> It strikes me that "we" are missing the point a bit with the CMS/Geeklog
> issue. Pointing out any aesthetical or cross browser anomalies is
> largely irrelevant as any errors will be present in whatever system is
> implemented and will have to be sorted out as time goes by. Also bearing
> in mind that the old/present site is by no means cross browser
> compatible or built to appeal to the largest spread of web browsers.
>

I think you are right about the cross browser thing. No website is going to
*completely* cross browser combatable. We can however do our best to make sure
that it works on as many browsers as possible. As Geeklog stands at the moment
it works with none of the popular Linux browsers. Granted, the original site
will not render in older browsers (ie Netscape 4, but that was more to do with
the graphics format than layout) but it did work in all the others I tried it
with. As you say, things can be sorted out over time but its critical that the
site renders okay from the start.

> The original statement remains:
>
> "We need a CMS which allows website visitors (SLUG members and the
> public) to access (categorized) articles about Linux related issues. The
> system should allow for article submissions and things like a calendar,
> polls etc would be nice."
>

Im not trying to be argumentative, but I would argue parts of this statement as
well. For a start, what are we going to put on a calendar? The meeting dates? Wouldnt a
simple list of dates do the job equally as well? Artical submission is needed,
and Geeklog does do this. Its the way that it does this that bothers me. De we
need the option to leave comments? Do we need to know how many times an Artical
has been read? Do we need login's and passwords? (my personal pet hate), Do we
need to know how many bloody words have been written? Do we need to know how long
it took to render the page?

> I personally don't want to manually edit things when something happens and to
> my knowledge no one opposed this view.

No one is opposed to this view. That is the fundamental reason that a CMS was
needed. The rest of the stuff I think is largely irrelevant. You need a simple
system that allows you to add new pages (note the word pages, not articles), and
edit old ones, possibly with automatic navigation facilities.

> Geeklog is (by comparative standards)
> a simple CMS, is fully configurable and has the required features. If Geeklog
> is not the answer then what is?

It may be simple compared the some of the larger ones, but it is still way too
bloated and overpowered for what we required. What is the point in spending all
that time cutting bits out of Geeklog to make it do what we want?

I had a quick surf around this morning to have a look for possible alternatives,
I came up with a couple but there are bound to be loads more.

1.	SiteMan
	http://www.ruinentertainment.com/helge/siteman/
	Simple system, easily customizable, no logins/passwords etc.

2.	Movable Type
	http://www.movabletype.org
	Many people favourate, could also be accused of being over complex.

3.	Rodin
	http://rodin.lot23.com
	Very simple system, themable or will integrate into existing design.

Rodin looks quite promising, but it could be that none of these are what
we are looking for

> Or if we are to
> build our own CMS then why will it be more appropriate than an "out of the
> box" CMS? Unless of course the new CMS is to be a group project?

There is nothing to say that our own CMS would be any better than Geeklog,
though I suspect it would be. The fact is though that as far as I know there is
few people that are willing to put the time into such a project. The lug is not
something that people use every day, or even every week for that matter, exactly
the reason why and article based system is inappropriate for our site.

>  >
> The bottom line is that we have the tools and the experience/knowledge
> to build whatever we want, so lets stop spending time worrying about
> trivialities and lets start concentrating on getting something sorted.
>

We are all guilty of wasting time on this. The website has not got a huge amount
of interest on the mailing list has it? It has rarely been discussed at any of
the meetings I have been to, apart from the one when we initially decided on a
CMS. I dont think we are worrying about 'trivialities', Geeklog is wrong for our
website. We have not investigated other options enough.

Im not trying to be a pain in the ass (though I know I am being), my last post
was a little blunt, and I pologise (it was late). I know that you have spent
time installing Geeklog etc and we all appreciate it. The website is the face
of the user group though and its essential that we get it right.

> Ian

Jamie

        adamsj at sdf-eu.org
  SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System
ICQ: 140365501 | Linux User: #314423