We deployed it twice, the first time it was a web of mess in weeks, it's far too complicated/configurable for even above-average users to use without immediately perverting the schema (to be fair we did no training). Second time it didn't get much use at all, as everyone pretty much gave up on it.
The ACL system they use is nasty, we found it hard to set up on the Windows domain and allow external viewers (that was a major reason for using Apptix). The backup didn't work for a long list of reasons, and I've no confidence the small (unused) SP install we have presently has any hope of being recovered fully if it fails. We have had some very vertical applications of it (using Apptix) that have worked, we used it 2 or more times as a dataroom for acquisitions - but that is just as a page of documents. MK 2009/3/27 doug livesey <[email protected]>: > Could you give me a few details on what has been so awful? > It's the kind of detail I'll need (assuming I find something else that suits > better), as arguing against MS to non-geeks is usually an uphill argument. > Cheers, > Doug. > > 2009/3/27 Matt Kydd <[email protected]> >> >> I can't vouch for Sharepoint as it really is awful. If you do use it I >> recommend using a hosted version from someone like Apptix - we've had >> a nightmare hosting it ourselves. >> >> MK >> >> 2009/3/27 doug livesey <[email protected]>: >> >> May I ask why it is that you're interested in a ruby-based CMS? >> > >> > There's a push to use sharepoint at work, and that may indeed be the >> > best >> > solution, but I wanted to explore alternatives, as I don't like handing >> > money over when we don't have to, and I'd stand a better chance of >> > getting >> > up to speed for administrating a Ruby solution. >> > >> > 2009/3/27 Robsteranium <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> As much as I love Ruby, I'd have to crown the php-based Drupal as CMS >> >> King. Modules are easy to customise and maintain without needing to >> >> dip into php. Drupal is so well established, that it would be hard to >> >> imagine a Ruby solution being able to compete. The only caveat is >> >> that the wysiwyg editors are a bit buggy (nothing as smooth as e.g. >> >> Wordpress) but that's the price you pay for the power to customise. >> >> >> >> NB: Choosing Drupal doesn't mean abandoning ruby for CMS work: >> >> http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=drupal+ruby >> >> >> >> May I ask why it is that you're interested in a ruby-based CMS? >> >> >> >> On Mar 25, 10:06 am, doug livesey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Cheers for those, & sorry for the late reply -- was off on site. >> >> > I've heard a few places that Ruby CMSes aren't too hot, mainly >> >> > because >> >> > all >> >> > effort seems to be divided between them. >> >> > We're just looking into a CMS at the minute & wanted to suggest an >> >> > opensource one I could customise & maintain without having to learn >> >> > PHP >> >> > or >> >> > something. >> >> > Nobody would put Radiant up against sharepoint or anything, then? >> >> > Doug. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NWRUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nwrug-members?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
