On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 20:26, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 21:21, Wil Cooley wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 06:20, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
>
> > It will take longer to public to
fedora.redhat.com -- we'll need
> > a proper CMS to do that for reasons involving infrastructure
> > (pushing web site content is currently too heavyweight a process
> > for that to work). It's still a good idea, though. :-)
>
> So are you saying that
http://www.redhat.com/software/rha/cms/ isn't a
> "proper CMS"? :)
>
reasons why it doesn't seem like a real cms to me:
1. source code is included - but under what license?
The CCMPL.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/ccmpl.html
While interesting, this does not appear to be an OSI Certified open
source license (check the list at
http://opensource.org/licenses/index.php ).
You learn something new every day. ;)
2. it's in java
3. it's in java
Would you rather C#? Wait, don't answer that.
4. The Red Hat CMS approach can have a company running a content
management system in as little as two months. - umm - 2months?
Compared to the time effort required to deploy a traditional proprietary
CMS, 2 months isn't bad.
~spot
---
Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat*com> LCA, RHCE
Red Hat Sales Engineer || Aurora SPARC Linux Project Leader
"The author's mathematical treatment of the conception of purpose is
novel and highly ingenious, but heretical and, so far as the present
social order is concerned, dangerous and potentially subversive. Not to
be published." -- Aldous Huxley