Which is better?

[melaniejk]

Hi.
I just bought a script? for genealogy called The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding, v.4.2.6. It says it can be used with a few different systems.

I've never used any of them any of them.
In your opinion, which is better and why?


Add-ons for Integrating TNG with Other Systems:

TNG Nuke Add-on v1.7 Enables TNG to be run as a PostNuke, PHP-Nuke or CPG Nuke module. Refer to readme-nuke.txt for instructions on configuring TNG to use this GPL product (TNG is *not* GPL, but this add-on is).


pnTNG 1.0 Zip file.
Enables TNG to be run as PostNuke module. No changes to original TNG files required, allows TNG to be installed anywhere under any name. Includes dynamic sideblock. License is GPL (TNG is *not* GPL, but this add-on is).


Mambo-TNG Zip file.
Integration between Mambo and TNG. Logs the Mambo user on and presents TNG within the Mambo theme. No changes to original TNG files required, allows TNG to be installed anywhere under any name. License is GPL (TNG is *not* GPL, but this add-on is).


He made is sound easy on his web site, but I think I may have gotten in over my head. But, I'm going to give it a try.



Thank you.

[sarahk]

They're all good but I'd vote for Mambo as the Nuke types seem to be hit by security problems after security problems. I've worked with both PHPNuke and Mambo. I wouldn't go back to Nuke in a hurry.

From an admin point of view you'd be fine with any of them.
If you were adding your own content and articles Mambo has a nice wysiwyg editor which the nukes aren't doing yet.

Best thing is, you dont have to pay $$$ to get these systems

You can test run these systems at http://www.opensourcecms.com and link to their home sites.

Sarah

[Wit]

All the Mambo site I've visited as a user (and that's not a lot - I must admit) were so slow that I started cursing my DSL. Connection was fine though.

Test for speed as well as the other stuff. Not everyone uses T1. Heck - more than half of my regulars still use O.F. modems (56K ones, but still...)

[painperdu]

Yes, take your time and play around with each one to get a better feel for them. They're all decent but I think Mambo is ahead by just a little bit.

Too bad they don't make one for PHPWebsite (http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu/)

[melaniejk]

Thank you all for your input.

Have a good Easter.

[sarahk]

[QUOTE=Wit]All the Mambo site I've visited as a user (and that's not a lot - I must admit) were so slow that I started cursing my DSL. Connection was fine though.

Test for speed as well as the other stuff. Not everyone uses T1. Heck - more than half of my regulars still use O.F. modems (56K ones, but still...)[/QUOTE]

Wit

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on Raincheck (http://www.raincheck.co.nz). I've tried to trim down the html but it's still a balance.

One of the problems with a publicly available CMS is that you have to code in a way that as many people as possible with "get" - which is not necessarily the fastest or technically "elegant". Mambo does well on finding that balance.

Sarah

[Wit]

First visit took about 7 seconds to load, second visit about 4. That on a 512k ADSL line. But my guess is that the connection speed doesn't really matter much.

AIH it's just a tiny bit slower than - say - seochat forums, heh. That one's slow because of the ads. It's a lot quicker however than some of the .aspx database thingies I have to work with.

My guess is that it will only start to come down to a grinding pace as soon as it really starts to fill up. As in: lotta content to manage. I'd run it through a site speed checker (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/) from time to time if I were you. Just in case.

[sarahk]

Thanks Wit :)