Don't like CMS

I'm wondering if I am one of the only one's who doesn't care for CMS. Here are a few reasons (I assume you will dispel some of them):
1. Not always easy to change the look and feel
2. Lots of features I don't need
3. Plugins are not updated. For example, phpbb updates their code so you have to wait even longer for Mambo to update the plugin for phpbb
4. They run slower than code that is streamlined for a specific purpose.
5. By the time you tweak all the features the way you want them, you could have built the site from scratch
6. If you want to add a feature or application that is not offered by the CMS, it takes much longer to add it to your site, because there is an additonal step required (integration).
7. What is popular today may not be popular tomorrow, as developers lose interest in the CMS
8. As newer coding practices are introduced, it becomes nearly impossible for the developers to bring in new methods, because there is too much code to rewrite.

No offense to the people out there who work hard with CMS. I'm just following a line of thought to see how people will respond.

 

If you are developing complex web applications CMS gets in the way unless you code one that fits your application specification. For small sites without much complexity that usually doesn't mather.

I personally just prefer to hand code stuff but for people without programming experience, CMS are their only solution.

 

I agree with all your points. I almost code my own dynamic pages for each application, although for peoply without this luxury, a CMS can be useful

 

agreed ....

The learning curve can be challenging, especially when trying to train others on it's usage. Customization and figuring out what file does what ... time.

Spend a bit of time and built your own if you can - more rewarding.

 

It's good to know I am not the only one that likes to code their own site.
Thanks for the feedback!

Notice the site in my signature is running Mambo. That is one of the reasons I started this thread. I want it gone.

 

What a surprise, this statement come from someone who is using Mambo CMS on his/her site.

http://www.phplinkdirectory.com/

 

Yep, from the voice of experience.
I've got Drupal and Typo3 on a couple of other sites.

 

You use typo3? You are a genius.....

If you ask me, I just build my site using dreamweaver, static html site and will include some php script if I think its necessary. You have more control on the layout and the way you want the site to appear to visitors.

 

I like wordpress as a cms. quick and easy to change look and feel.

 

Yea, Wordpress is good blog software, and they are still continuing to improve it. I would consider more in the blog category than the cms. Agreed?

And yes, you have to be a genius to use Typo3. I busted out laughing when I saw your comment.

 

I've really been getting into DotNetNuke. It runs on IIS and SQL Server, however updating it is a much easier chore and to upgrade modules, all you usually need to do is upload the new one.

Although it is all MS specific, that's what causes it to be easier to use and update. However, module development could be a lot easier.

 

My site started out as a manual creation but after about 50 pages, it became too difficult to maintain. At that point I wrote my own asp based cms application that allows me the ability to add pages as well as maintain the sponsors list and make it all work together. I find the need to modify and improve the cms regularly as well, but it's a lot less work than trying to manually deal with hundreds of pages and interwoven sponsor data. It just depends on what works for each person I think

 

I wonder if there is a minimum CMS. Something that allows for headers, footers, page copying, user authentication and style sheets. If something had just those 5 things, and kept it simple, it could have huge support.

 

What do you mean by user authentication? Allowing all users to contibute, or just the admin?

 

I mean having a central way to register and "login" users.

 

CMS Made Simple is quite a good basic CMS, but I guess there is still a space for something simpler. In fact, I bet few even simpler ones do exist, but mostly commercial from what I have seen.

 

I looked over a a bunch of CMS's when I went to set up my e-zine site. They all gave me the willies - as a software developer I'm only too famliar with packages that solve a specific problem, but are a nightmare to get to do anything that deviates from that specific problem.

I had very specific ideas on how I wanted to set this up, and have wound up coding my own. Agreed, it takes more time. And, since most of the effort has been on getting output, input is primitive (pages with dot codes - no wysiwyg editors, here).

But, I'm getting what I want, and I know I can do anything I want with it (as long as I'm the only one generating content.)

My 2 centavos,
rickb

 

It seems also that CMS are never able to keep all parts up to current standards.
So when you need to update, say the forum software, their fix is far behind the release by phpbb for example.

 

I agree with points in the first post. And that is why I'm building my own CMS to suit my custom needs.

I think the biggest advantage in having homemade CMS is that is so much easier to customize. You don't have to read hundreds of lines of code just to understand the basics behind a system. You know it already!

 

I've tried a load of different CMS systems, and for clients I usually recommend Plone.

Like Neoto, I've written my own CMS for my use, and I'm very pleased I did. There's only me updating the site, so I don't need to worry about concurrency, I don't even have an interface to update - just write the post in a textfile, scp it into the right directory on the server and it's posted. The system would probably be useless for anyone else, for me it's pretty much pefect