[compiz] Looking for input
imnotpc at ubaight.com
Mon Nov 27 20:58:26 PST 2006
On Thursday 23 November 2006 06:45, Tuukka Hastrup wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, imnotpc wrote:
> > Regarding the content of the website, there has been some discussion
> > regarding using a content management system on the site. You can see it
> > in this thread:
> > http://forum.go-compiz.org/viewtopic.php?t=98&sid=669e6ecc0315feb3b6ae3ad
> After reading your thread, I suppose the main points are something like
> the following:
Tuukka, I've been waiting to reply hoping that a few more people would jump in
with opinions either pro or con. Of course either of our opinions are moot if
David disagrees with us.
You did a good job summarizing the opinions that had been expressed in the
thread I referenced. I do need to point out, however, that you attribute all
the points in your summary to me. Some of these were my points, and I agree
with some of the others, but I don't want those who haven't read the thread
to get the impression I was giving a monolog or that we all agreed.
> 1. You don't like the current MediaWiki theme.
> You could enhance it. Personally, I think it's great and more than we
Well unfortunately I can't enhance it measurably and that was the overall
theme of my comments in the thread. While I can and do add content (just for
the record I've added the most content and made the most edits in the wiki),
using the current system I have neither the time, the wiki skills, nor the
access rights to make the kinds of changes I think we should make. amgeex,
RYX, and myself (I apologize if I missed someone) have offered to help
install, manage, and design a CMS based site using tools we are comfortable
According to the editing logs the wiki has been up for a month now. Look at
our site after a month of work, then compare it to the default Exponent site
I set up in less than15 minutes (Joomla would have taken 20-30 minutes).
Imagine what we could have done with a CMS site in 30 days...
I've heard several comments that a CMS is more than we need. I really don't
understand this point at all. Any good CMS is completely modular. If there
are features that you don't want well... we just won't use them. But if the
community grows and decides a module is needed, then in most cases it's
already installed and ready to be configured.
Complexity is a different issue and some CMSs like Joomla can be hard to learn
to use because they have so many features. This is why we would want to
select a CMS that was appropriate for our needs and users.
> 2. You think wiki markup is more difficult than HTML.
> I can't see how. Of course you need to learn it if you have to know all
> the tricks, but the learning curve is gentler for writers and editors.
> There isn't a lot of content pouring in at the moment, would that change
> with HTML?
Why should a writer or editor need to know either? With the Joomla editor you
write in plain English (or whatever language you wish) and change styles and
headings by selecting the new style from the icons or dropdown menus.
Exponent has replaceable editing modules with different features. I don't
know about any others.
> 3. You want a system for multiple languages.
> I've never used a multi-language wiki (There's a separate Wikipedia per
> language, with manual cross-references.) I would think namespaces,
> categories and templates can be used to setup a good system.
This wasn't me and I don't know enough about language capabilities to comment.
> 4. You're afraid of wiki spamming.
> Didn't happen yet and can be reverted. And in the end, the wiki can be
> configured to require registration too.
Again, this wasn't me. But I can say that CMS systems have multiple levels of
permissions which allow granular control over content and editing, including
a permission level that allows users to make unlimited edits but won't
publish them until a moderator approves the changes. I see no reason certain
sections can't be configured with open access like a wiki and others locked
down to prevent abuse.
> Also in the beginning of the thread you raise the issue of the wiki
> organization. I can't see what's wrong with it now, except for the plan I
> sketched in my previous message about this topic. To clarify, developer
> information isn't directly visible but behind "Develop it". And to think
> of yet another version of "Use it", what about "Deploy it" or "Utilize
> it"? These could convey the idea of giving the visitors what they need to
> fully take advantage of installing Compiz.
I think everyone pretty much agrees we need another main menu choice to
provide info to compiz users, whatever we call it.
> > So the second question is: Is a CMS right for our site?
> > My personal opinion is that we should decide what the CMS will be used
> > for, then select one that fits those needs. I also think we should keep
> > zootreeves's forum as it is and keep the wiki for documentation, but
> > implement a cms for the rest of the site.
> I personally would think that we don't need a CMS, because a wiki is a CMS
> and more.
Tuukka, I have to disagree with you here. A wiki is a specialized subset of
CMS, not the other way around. The type of CMS I prefer is designed
specifically to be the primary website management tool. You certainly can use
MediaWiki to manage your site (as we are doing). It's just that there are
other tools that are better suited for the job.
> What would you put in the CMS if not documentation: the front
> page, the videos, download instructions, links to discussion forums,
> development instructions?
News about compiz plugins and releases, a theme with more complex graphics
(After all we are working on bleeding edge gui and visual effects
technology!), RSS feed, calendar of milestones/goals to name a few
> To give an example, Wikipedia is a huge
> multi-language project which is able to do everything (front pages,
> discussions and all) with MediaWiki, mailing lists, and a bug tracker.
> I put some improvement proposals earlier at
Fine ideas and I know you've already contributed a lot, but there is so much
more we can do. I'm not saying we should get rid of the wiki. Just keep an
open mind and look at some other tools we have access to.
More information about the compiz