[drupal-docs] CMS comparison

[Steven Wittens]

Dries Buytaert wrote:

>Somewhat off-topic but see http://fiskbooth.com/report-full.pdf.
>  
>

I thought this review was quite odd...

I read through it, and from the text I got a very good impression of 
Drupal and most of the other software. Yet at the end, they decide to 
give each CMS a score based on the presence of certain shallow features. 
As has been pointed out, they did not include contributed modules, so 
Drupal is said not to have wysiwig or trackback and scores very, very 
low. On top of that, the report was written for 21Publish, and in spite 
of a claim of no bias, I find it suspicious that that product scores 
9.5, though there was mention of some serious bugs and lack of 
extensibility which almost all the competitors have.

Furthermore, they say Drupal lacks the following features in their 
scoring chart:

- "Automated blog sign-up": signing up on a site with blog.module gives 
you a blog automatically, but this isn't very clear in Drupal. It has 
been discussed before, but perhaps we should look again at making 
blog.module more suited for blog hosting. The same goes for "simple 
multi-blog support" which we do have. Still, it is as simple as 
explaining the benefits of registration to your users.

- "Blog branding": IMO this is a big oversight on their part, which they 
say is about being able to easily brand each blog with a banner at the 
top. Drupal has plenty capabilities, with logos in the header, sidebar 
blocks, etc. You have full control with the theme system.

- "Archiving": does not apply due to our use of dynamic pages, but we 
still have archive.module as well as the ability to access old content 
like it was new. IMO classic blog-style archiving of pages is a stupid 
practice that has no place in a real CMS. All content should be equal.

- "Blog aggregation": with RSS feeds for all the important blog pages 
and a built-in news aggregator with custom categorization, I think 
Drupal scores a generous +1 on this item.

By their own logic, we should score 9.5, not 5.5 ;). I guess the 
question is: how can we make our existing features more visible to 
users? Something for the docs team to think about...

Steven Wittens