WB versus Joomla!

[LuuQ]

I've used Joomla 1.5 for one website. I have first watched a video tutorial, without this, I think, I would have had big problems starting with Joomla, it's really very complex. You must always think, how the different parts of the site are connected with each other. So for example where to hide the pdf icon and so on.
In the opposite WebsiteBaker is really simple to use. WebsiteBaker was my first CMS and I still love. I'm always testing other CMS, but I always return to WB.
In Joomla there are more functions and addons, and for a big and more complex Website it is better than WebsiteBaker, I think. But when you have to build smaller sites, like for a small company that wants to present itself in the internet or for an association, WebsiteBaker is simply perfect.
I never thought that it is so easy to build a template with WebsiteBaker. Now I'm creating all the templates by myself.
The only disadvantage is, that there could be more extensions. Or from the other side: I should learn php and mysql better, so I could create some by myself.

[deeve007]

WB is great for the majority of fairly standard sites with no overly complex functionality types. It's up there with CMS Made Simple and Wordpress.

Joomla is better than WB if you need to create a site with more complex functionality, such as a classifieds or directory, real estate site, and even e-commerce.

So each "tool" has its uses, and important to use the right tool for the right job.

[Stefek]

Because of it's simplicity. For both: designers/developers and customers/editors (that fellows who are finally using it).

Regards,
Stefek

[Xagone]

i've develop with :
- self made cms in asp.net
- self made cms in PHP 4 & 5
- Joomla
- Typo3
- Xoops
- Yacs
- CMS Made Simple
- Mambo
- Wordpress
- and i've pretty much tested every portal in opensourcecms.com

beleive me when i say WB eclipse them all...
creating a template from scratch in WB is easier and fater than all of them...
creating plugin is a breeze in WB
creating code snippet ? are you serious ? only Typo3 could do that against WB!
templating system in blocks rules... multimenus is too hot... show_menu2() rock the web and so on ...

on my website i was happy to say that my site was "baked" hehehe

[gemnb]

I agree with most members who say Joomla is to complicated. For several years I used (and developed) iziContents, a very nice cms. Very easy to use on the backend. Unfortunately development has stopped.

So I looked for a similar cms. All the big ones (Joomla, Mambo, Drupal etc.) are much to complicated for normal users. WB came very close to iziContents, so I started using it. And I must say I'm very pleased with it!

Well of course there are some changes I would like to see in the backend, but I'll ask for them in the right topic.

Regards,
Ton

[brent]

I used Joomla/Mambo a couple of years ago. I found both of them very complicated on the backend to do simple tasks. Most customers look for simplicity. I actually found WebsiteBaker by accident while browsing the internet and came accross a website that used it. I was able to setup a testing site within minutes.

Joomla's advantages to name a couple are more modules and templates available, some are open source and some are commercially available. Many of them are very professional and well tested.

I still prefer WebsiteBaker for it's simplicity, however many improvements could be made for items like professionaly made templates with dynamic menus, photo galleries, callendars, and such.

[tr1]

I think Joomla is more complicated to use but one advantage is that there are a few designers out there that make really professional (albeit commercial) looking templates for it.

[centran]

@spida

I like that explanation. It is true. There are a vast amount of "CMS"s out there. You really need to break them down into what they are good at. You can build almost any type of website with any of them but some are more geared towards a specific task.

Wordpress is a blog. Could you make a e-commerce site out of it?... maybe but it would be tough.
Joomla is for a community site where many people will be submitted pages or articles and they will need approval from editors. Could you make a simple website only used by a couple of people?... sure but it is overkill for your needs.
WB is good for basic websites that doesn't have people submitting content for approval before posting. Could you use it as a community site?... maybe, it has user and group permissions but isn't geared towards page approval.

[spida]

OK, here are my two cents.

I actually work with a number of different CM systems. But seriously looked at, Joomla is no CMS, as e.g. Wordpress is none. Joomla is a community content system. I used it for a community, but got really fed up with it for several technical reasons. I switched to Drupal, which is also a community conent system, and I am pretty satisfied with it.

As 'real' CMS I use WebsiteBaker for smaller projects and Contenido for more complex ones. Both are very well coded, it's easy to work with them vor the developer as well as for the user.

As weblog systems Wordpress and Srenedipity are nice to handle. Currently I also use WB as a weblog, I just had to make the right concept in advance

There are literally hundreds of CMS, Blog systems, community systems and the like in the sphere. You just have to make a choice someday

Cheers,
spida

[sare]

@pcwacht & vyni:

thanks for your responses. I had looked through AMASP before but missed Section picker.

Seems just like what I need. Great!

[vyni]

Hi sare,

have a look at AMASP - this is an almost complete overview of existing modules and snippets.

For Your specific whish: use section-picker
or, what I prefer, make a global block with an if - else switch. ( If something is entered through the backend show it - else show this)
Look in this forum for global block - You will find several discussions. If You understand german - have a look here (at least the code isn´t german).

regards from Himberg, next to Vienna

[pcwacht]

There exists allso a global-block module
That module can show sections of other pages.


John

[sare]

Hi!

Thanks for the tip. For a new user this wasn't obvious, since it's not mentioned in the manual.

Including pages in the templates is a creative trick. Some seem to have problems with it, and it has a slight 'workaround' feel to it. But i guess it works.

[pcwacht]

Call it 'recurring content' or some such.

WB has named it global blocks, have a search in the forum, many , many info exists on this topic.

[sare]

Hi.

For your normal (but not necessarily basic) corporate websites, WB is a much better solution than Joomla 1.5.

I'm a php coder of 3 years, and decided on Joomla a few months ago. After 4 projects of cumbersome sitebuilding I gave up on Joomla.

The tipping point was when I realized that dynamic navigation simply does not exist in Joomla. You create the content and create the navigation as a separate entity altogether. The menu-based structure (as opposed to page-based in WB) is innovative but if someone else needs to handle the content (the client comes to mind), it's pure programmer hell.

The Joomla frontend is only good for modifying current content and adding documents. The navigation is, for the user, static. And you just can't let a non-programmer to the backend, it's too complicated.

WB is the complete opposite in many ways. The only weakness i've encountered (and actually a strong point in Joomla design) surfaces when you want to have similar content on multiple pages. For instance, case examples of the work the company has done. Now you either make it static on every page you wish, or create a module for it. For the latter i still need to do a bit of study, but it would be a great addition to the basic WB package. Call it 'recurring content' or some such.

If there's a way for this already, i'd appreciate the information.

Just my two cents. Btw, i'm new here. And WB 2.7 is my CMS of choice for current projects. Cheers!

[Ogierini]

Thanks Ruud, I'll look into it!

kind regards Irene

[Ruud]

Hi there,

I got a dutch manual written for managing websits built with 2.7 and I am willing to share it.
regards Irene

I think in the Dutch sub-forum there will be a lot of interest for that. (I know I do)

There is an initiative to gather all bits and pieces of Dutch manuals.
https://forum.websitebaker.org/index.php/topic,10841.0.html
and
https://forum.websitebaker.org/index.php/topic,11181.0.html

Ruud

[virgil]

I got a dutch manual written for managing websits built with 2.7 and I am willing to share it.

hi irene

that would be great! despite the fact I do not speak dutch ... but german. I do not know if it may be of help, but I would like to have a look at it and hope of a certain similarity ... so maybe I can (time presupposed) tryt o translate it in german ...

could you provide the manual to me in an editable form? (e.g. word)

tks in advance.
virgil

[Ogierini]

Hi there,

I got a dutch manual written for managing websits built with 2.7 and I am willing to share it.
regards Irene

[virgil]

And that's what is brilliant about WB, it is so simple, with my manual they manage to do it very well thereselves.

btw ... concernig manual ... has anyone of you written already a manual for 2.7, like the one already existing for 2.6.x? ... and is willing to share?

regards
virgil

[Stefek]

My doubt about wb is sometimes: is it here to stay for the long run?
If I see your reactions and the helpfull forum I think that it will be!

Yes, Irene.
Some of us working hard to make it possible 

We are keeping WB alive - and every single person asking for this CMS.


Best,
Stefek

[Ogierini]

Well, really good to hear from you long-time wb users what your experiences are with both joomla and wb.

I met someone last week and she showed me joomla again and I thoudght the possibillities looked really great,
but I don't make the websites for myself but for people who think it is allready difficult to e-mail .....for example ...photographs.
And that's what is brilliant about WB, it is so simple, with my manual they manage to do it very well thereselves.

My doubt about wb is sometimes: is it here to stay for the long run?

If I see your reactions and the helpfull forum I think that it will be!

regards Irene

[chio]

I used Joomla a little bit - some years ago, for one projekt and with help.
I never could get the SEF-URLs working, so I looked around and found WB.
Joomla has a much better media-management, but that ist not real an advantage, and I still hope someone will improve the media management in WB.

[pcwacht]

Same here

Didn't use joomla, bit used mambo from 4.0

WB is so much easier to master, both for developer as user.


John

[Stefek]

Personally I have made a website with Joomla, and it worked, but than again.... the people I make websites for would consider it much to complicated.

Hello Irene.

I personally think that this is the main reason why we are using WB.
I allways wnat a solution for my customers where they can work with without spending too much time on introduction into the system.

The another point why I prefere using WB vs. Joomla, Typo3 or "whateversystem" is the quick production time.
Even if you may be able to produce templates fast for the another CMS, I don't think that it will be as fast as with WB.

This is my personal two pro WB reasons.

Regards,
Stefek