[Zope-CMF] Plone/Metadata/FUD

[Ausum Studio]

From: "Erik Lange" erik@mmmanager.org
(...)
>
> In short; Plone is great for those that needs a portal-like site, but it's
> way to heavy to base the next generation of the CMF/Zope3 on it.
>
> Hmm... does this make sense ? Hope I haven't offended anyone...

It does make sense to me. Please allow me to paste the content of a recent
post of mine to ZopeZen:

"""
When in-house is better than out-of-the-box

Last year came into my view this article at PCWorld Germany (
http://www.pcwelt.de/news/internet/19902/ ) * about all sort of problems
that european publisher Bild* had while implementing its new Bild.de site
with Vignette. Also by that time I read somewhere about how some current
owners of high-end CMS suites felt uncomfortable with them, after having
being forced to customize almost everything because they just had realized
how those suite's out-of-the-box features didn't fit their particular
workflows and organization's behaviours. (According to a last year report
from Gartner ( http://www.gartner.com/webletter/bowstreet/art6/art6.html ) ,
it is a "rule of thumb" that the first release of a portal enterprise starts
with 90% of feaures out-of-the-box, while subsequent ones invert this number
by increasing the percentage of custom-integrated features up to that same
number.)
In my opinion what some OS alternatives provide is a neutral platform for
enterprises to build and deploy their own web solutions, and that's what
makes them so appealing. Different organizations are so different one to
another that attempts to abstract a general purpose CMS fall into the
mentioned problem. That's why Zope and CMF are so brilliant: In combination
they provide a clean and smart framework that you can use either to build a
single floor wood house, or a fifty floor steel building. It may not be like
that in the future, nonetheless, if we don't explicitly differentiate the
CMF from its current implementations (CMFDefault, Plone), which may cause
many potential users to not to try the CMF after realizing that those
implementations aren't suitable to their needs.    """

In architecture they have this term to refer to different types of
buildings: "Typology". A temple is different to a mall and both are
different to a hotel because they correspond to different typologies.
Although different religions demand different types of temples, as long as
they share the same basic set of needs, they belong to the same typology.
What it may happen in our case  is that if we don't intentionally
differentiate things, newcommers or potential people requiring to build
typologies not currently in the scope of Plone, could believe that Zope/CMF
has the limitations they may find there.


Ausum


*In the post,
http://www.zopezen.org/Members/zopista/News_Item.2002-10-01.1253/talkback/10
33557945
you'll find the link to the translated page by Google.
* The publisher was the Axel Springer Verlag group, not Bild.


> Regards,
> Erik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org
> http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
>
> See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
>