Bricolage // Re: Fixing the website
essuu at ourshack.com
Tue Nov 15 14:26:19 GMT 2005
Disclosure : Part of my $dayjob is building Bricolage sites.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Aaron Crane wrote:
> - For smaller sites, Bricolage is substantially more effort to deploy
> and look after than a trivial solution like ttree. This is
> particularly true if the people maintaining the content can ssh to
> the server and edit there, or can drive a version-control working
> copy and commit appropriately.
We can do a simple static site in about the same time but if you have to
climb the learning mountain first, then I agree it's not worth it.
If you have users who have no idea about html and think that Outlook is
"nifty", giving them a simple (fsvo simple) web interface actually saves
you a world of pain.
> - For larger sites, Bricolage is substantially more effort to deploy
> and look after than a custom-written CMS. I think it takes less
> than a month for one person to write a full CMS from scratch. Much
> less, if the feature list is short, and you have a useful toolbox of
> reusable web-app code to throw at the problem. Bricolage
> deployments of any significant size or complexity take considerably
> longer than a month.
If you have an on-tap developer I think this could be true. Particularly
if said developer likes reinventing wheels. NIH syndrome is epidemic among
developers after all :-)
I think Bricolage is more appropriately targetted at organisations with
limited or no technical resources available. At that stage having
something with most of the features you need is a good thing. Yes, that
puts it in competition with the Big Players like Vignette and Teamshite
but that's OK.
> Also, if new features come along every week or two, it'll probably
> be much easier to add them to your own code than to find some way of
> shoehorning them into Bricolage's way of doing things. And don't
> forget that the people maintaining the content will need to be
> trained in the arcane ways of operating Bricolage. Even people who
> like Bricolage agree that creating and editing pages with it is less
> than straightforward.
It's getting better and I have clients who use both Bricolage and
$bigplayer who say that Bricolage is *much* easier to use. All of these
big systems have their arcana, at least with Bricolage you can contribute
to improving things.
> > For those that are happy with svn, ssh and make/ttree it's probably
> > overkill but I throw it out as an option.
> Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that Bricolage is also overkill for
> those with big websites on which their entire business depends.
A lot of the people listed on http://www.bricolage.cc/about/sites/ would
disagree with that statement. As with all large systems, it depends a lot
on how you implement it.
So what negative experience have you had that leads you to your
"Buy Mr Dog for small Yappy type dogs and maybe they'll shut the f**k
More information about the london.pm