The University of Michigan Library is in the process of a major site
redesign. Part of this design is moving -- at long last -- from static pages
built on SSI to a full-blown content management system. We started with a
review of the (mostly open source) CMS software landscape, and winnowed this
list down to nine candidate systems worth a deeper look:
- Alfresco CMS <http://www.alfresco.com/>
- Daisy <http://cocoondev.org/daisy/index.html>
- Drupal <http://drupal.org/>
- Joomla! <http://www.joomla.org/>
- ModX CMS <http://modxcms.com/>
- Plone <http://plone.org/>
- SilverStripe CMS <http://www.silverstripe.com/>
- Typo 3 <http://typo3.com/>
- WebGUI <http://www.plainblack.com/webgui>
We took a look at each of these in some detail, taking into consideration
programming languages and local expertise, amount of documentation, vibrancy
of the active developer community, comparable "peer" installations (either
in other libraries or at other similarly large-scale sites), and a very
subjective review of how the admin and authoring interfaces acted. We
summarized our findings in a spreadsheet:
[image: CMS Comparison
Table]<http://www.lib.umich.edu/graphics/litblog/CMS_Overview-lg.png>
After this first pass, we ended up with a short list of 3 tools, the ones
with the highest average score:
- Drupal <http://www.drupal.org/>
- Joomla! <http://www.joomla.org/>
- Plone <http://www.plone.org/>
We then set up out-of-the box test installations of these three finalists
and compared them in terms of workflow (our final designs weren't ready, so
we didn't focus on making the test installs look "right"). We arranged phone
conversations with library IT folks who were using these tools. And in the
end, we selected Drupal. While the other two tools had strengths, we ended
up deciding against Joomla! because of what we perceived as a surfeit of
security problems over time with frequent releases to patch bugs or security
holes. We liked Plone, as well, but we felt taking on a new programming
environment (Python) for something as critical as our web presence was not
sensible.
In the end, though, it was Drupal's strengths in terms of its modular
construction, very lively development community, and the number of large
academic libraries using it that led our decision.
--
Fuente: http://mblog.lib.umich.edu/blt/archives/2008/07/drupal_mlibrary.html
