[SLUG] Geeklog and the Lug Website

[Jamie Adams]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Ian Eade @ IGM wrote:

> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 17:07:12 +0100
> From: "Ian Eade @ IGM" <ieade at igmwebdesign.info>
>
> Spending time on formatting a development CMS could well be time wasted,
> the initial goal is to see if the proposed CMS works and what it can and
> cannot do. Having found this out then provides a decision as to whether
> or not the CMS is fit for the purpose, if it is not then its binned,
> otherwise it remains and all the formatting can be completed, safe in
> the knowledge that time spent on formatting will not be wasted.

Which is what we are doing now :)

The problem I have is that the layout is so in my face that I find it difficult
to assess anything else. It *LOOKS* like a cms.

> > 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?
> >
>
>
> Either the bits that are not needed can be removed or you can choose to
> ignore them when you visit the site

Agreed. But we need to make a decision on what bits are needed and which are
not. The trouble is that we obviously have significantly different views of what
the site will do when it is finished.

>
>
> > 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?
>
>
> A very small amount of time is required to cut out the superfluous bits,
> Geeklog's strength is its ability to add, edit and delete bits

Thats good to know.

> > 1.	SiteMan
> > 	http://www.ruinentertainment.com/helge/siteman/
> > 	Simple system, easily customizable, no logins/passwords etc.
> >
>
> No online demo or documentation, feature list etc. Download page hangs?

Docs are in the downloaded zip file.

> > 2.	Movable Type
> > 	http://www.movabletype.org
> > 	Many people favourate, could also be accused of being
> > over complex.
>
> Written in Perl, does the SLUG site have the MySQL Perl module?
> "Support for the DB_File Perl (Berkeley DB) module OR the MySQL database
> & DBD::mysql"
>
> Looks like rocket science:
> http://www.movabletype.org/screenshots/screen-mainmenu.html
>

Yeah, movable type is a pretty complex piece of software. It has lots of
functions but is easily customizable, like Geeklog. I dont like movable type
because it uses a web interface to put new content in. You can get clients but
there are no good ones for linux. Its probably as bloated as geeklog. Not a good
example, but an example.

> > 3.	Rodin
> > 	http://rodin.lot23.com
> > 	Very simple system, themable or will integrate into
> > existing design.
>
>
> Given that the download file is corrupted there's no way of knowing what
> its like

It untarred fine for me.

> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> Maybe if there is a reason for using the site then people would? At
> present we'll never know, unless of course the object of the exercise is
> in the design and development of the site and not its actual usage.

I dont think they would. Past additions to the website have not been used
regularly, if at all. They were only additions though, not a full rewrite like
we have now. It might change, but I dont see it.

> I see no reason why Geeklog cannot be hacked into shape and then people
> can get on with using it. Formatting and extra features can be removed
> and the things that we need can be developed. Lets have a quick reminder
> of what Geeklog can do:

> Categorised Articles
*TICK*

> Static Pages
*TICK* I Think. In my view all the pages should look static. The cms
should be invisible.

> Article Submission
*CROSS* unnecessary. You should be able to add new article, letting
other people means passwords/logins etc. Unless you let anonymous
posters. The amount of articles you get will be small, it will be
simple enough to do it yourself.

> Calendar
*CROSS* I think a list would be better. The calendar looks daft when
it is half empty.

> FAQ Page
*TICK*
Its a good idea, and something that has been suggested before. I think this
could be done easily using any system though. Gets a tick anyway because we
should have one :)

> Search
*TICK*

> Polls
* CROSS*

> Links Page
*TICK*
Though we already have one.. and so does every other page on the web. Not
exactly a feature is it?

> Stats
*CROSS*
Does anyone other than you really need to know? They could be quite embarrassing
:)

> Print Stories
*TICK*
I have honestly never used a print button on a web page ever. It might be useful
though.

> Email Article
*CROSS* Unnecessary.

> Article Comments		*CROSS*
> Article Dates			*TICK*
> User Accounts			*CROSS* (thats an extra big cross btw)
> Scaleable page architecture	*?*
> Modular code design
> PHP scripted			*TICK*
> MySQL database driven		*Who cares?*
> Admin assignment for features	*Admin assignment for all features.

> So here's one way of looking at it, forget about the formatting etc and
> place a tick against the items that you think are required and a cross
> against those that are not. If there are more ticks than crosses then
> Geeklog remains, now may I propose that you get your pencil out and be
> honest.

I have been honest. I admit, it does some useful stuff. A lot of it is
unnecessary. If geeklog were to be hacked to how I would like it (which may not
be how everyone else would like it) I would start from the ground up.  Hack it
down to the complete basics then slowly add features. It might be worth
scrapping the original design completely rather than try and fit it into whats to
come. If geeklog can do this I will be happy (i swear). The problem we have is
that we all obviously have conflicting views of how it should be, we need to
overcome this before we can go anywhere if everyone is going to be happy, which
im sure can be accomplished.

I think Marks idea is a good idea, we need to sit down and sort out what we
need and what we dont, we can work the rest out from there and work out wether
geeklog is going to do it effectively. It sounds quite possible that it can,
though im still in denial. :)

Jamie

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