[SGVLUG] Website Testing

[Dustin]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Emerson, Tom wrote:

> > [...] So instead of working on WebGUI or Plone I did a little
> > research, and found a comparison chart that showed Typo3 as being able
> > to generate static pages.
> 
> Where is this chart?

OK, I put out some new links on the slightly re-designed front page
(sgvlug dot laurences dot net).  I believe the Linux-Aktivaattori site on
their project to choose a new CMS was the one that liked Typo3 the most.  
I'm looking for the table mentioning static content, though, and don't see 
it.

You know, Typo3's principal author is Danish, so it may well come across
more professionally to Scandinavians than it does to me.  They also rated
Drupal higher than Mambo initially (though I think later it was eliminated
in favor of either Mambo or Typo3).  I thought about installing Drupal
since I'm on the marathon-install binge, but I don't know that I have the
endurance to go that far. :-)

> ...I'd like to know about some of the other choices
> as well (not neccessarilly for "this group", but for my own home/blog --

I think I have some blog comparison links somewhere I didn't put out 
because we're not looking at a blog for the LUG site.  I think these
are they:

http://www.asymptomatic.net/blogbreakdown.htm
http://asymptomatic.net/wp/2004/05/28/568/blogware-choice/

The latter link has a fun paragraph:

"Even more disheartening... .Text is the only blogware that anyone
suggested for the Windows platform. I asked and asked about it because I
wanted to give Windows a fair shake. Well, it seems that the only thing
that .net developers care about is .net. That is, who cares about the
applications you can create with it as long as you have this wonderful
language to create them with. I wish them well in ever getting anyone off
the ground with .Text, since I couldn't even figure out how to get a copy.
Yeah, it was that user-unfriendly."

This sort of anecdotal observation is why I tend to argue that languages
in which nothing is written that I want to run probably won't have much I
want to run in the future, either.  With some languages, the "great
features" never make it into, you know, programs. :-)

> though MT seems to work well enough [when I update it...] there is still
> that nagging "not 100% gpl" air about it...)

I didn't think any part of it was GPL'd.

Dustin