|CMS of the big Guns|
CMS of largest websites on the internet
| 2:04 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Recently, I read an article in .net mag (UK) that stated that Yahoo! use Drupal as one of their CMS'. Since then, i have been wondering what CMS' websites like BBC.co.uk, MySpace and all the big communities use.
Does any one know of any?
| 2:07 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Mostly they write them by theirselves. Some of them use drupal, typo3.
| 2:15 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Mmm, interesting. When i worked as a freelancer, i chose Joomla. I haven't used it for a few months due to a new job in ASP. I just looked at it for another freelance job. I like the way it is going, and am glad they are sorting there accessibility issues out. I haven't used drupal or typo3 but they seem to always be highly rated.
I am moving in the direction of asp.net so am keen to have a go with dotnetnuke. Any experiences?
| 6:25 pm on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It depends on the organization. Depending on how its websites are managed there may be several different CMS systems in place for different types of websites, or for different units. In many cases they are built in-house, but there is also a pretty large field of enterprise-level web content management systems, as well as web content add-ins to document management, groupware, BPM, etc.
There's big money in content management for big organizations (e.g. Exxon), of course, which is different from popular websites. Players in this field include (by no means exhaustive)
| 12:44 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I work for a regulatory and representative body in the UK and we use Autonomy and Interwoven TeamSite/OpenDeploy/DataDeploy on Windows and Solaris.
Granted; I am sure similar functionality could be achieved with much cheaper (even free) software and operating systems.
An observation is that organisations have a habit of buying 'enterprise products' as they think of themselves as large enterprises. In reality they are usually mid (or small) sized and some how they find comfort and confidence in buying multi-million pound systems with 3rd party support in addition to vendor support.
It also appears that some companies also recruit thier staff in this way - they will pay extra for a person who has a certification in 'big gun' software configuration.
| 6:27 pm on Aug 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's not entirely illogical for a big organization to choose comparatively costly commercialware over open source or low-end products. They pay a bit more, but they are comfortable knowing that if there's a software problem there's someone at the other end of the phone line. Certifications mean that finding and sorting out relatively qualified people is much easier than determining skill levels by interview. The money isn't that big of a deal compared to a smoothly running operation.
| 10:00 pm on Aug 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yup, Vignette StoryServer is one of the more popular ones. Sites running that are easy to spot, plenty of commas in the url's. (.../story/0,2789,873598,00.html)
BBC News uses good old SSI ( [news.bbc.co.uk...] and [support.bbc.co.uk...] )
[edited by: MaxM at 10:09 pm (utc) on Aug. 18, 2006]
| 1:22 am on Aug 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree for the most part with rogerd, though support is getting better. And the support and liability questions haven't stood in the way of Apache.
I think a larger issue is integration. Aside from OpenCMS and Daisy, which major open source packages work well with a J2EE environment? Because that Linux PHP server you stick in your Eclipse/Solaris/Oracle or .NET/Windows/SAP or other typical corporate environment is a red-headed stepchild your IT manager doesn't want to deal with, especially when the RedDot/Percussion/FatWire rep is talking up easy (i.e. inexpensive) plugins to NetWare, Exchange, Domino, Crystal Reports, and that 10-year old application on the OS/2 server that retrieves data from the mainframe (quite a common thing in financial services).