Re: [SLUG] Slash vs PHPNuke

From: Paul M Foster (paulf@quillandmouse.com)
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 00:13:54 EDT


On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 11:14:14PM -0400, robin wrote:

> >
> >
> >Anyone use Slashcode and PHPNuke and have comments on which is
> >better/worse and why?
> >
> PHPNuke is easier/faster to set up and get running for a low or
> mid-volume site.
>
> Slash is more configurable (it's modular now; you don't need to have
> moderation and all that unless you want to), has more (optional)
> features, and can stand up to much higher usage levels. I know one Slash
> site that has maintained loads of over 200,000 pageviews per hour many
> times, and once peaked at over 400,000 in a single hour -- and kept
> running. (http://slashdot.org)
>

<snip>

I've read that Nuke is PHP driven and slower, while Slash is Perl driven
and faster. Also, Nuke apparently has a dearth of documentation compared
to Slash.

I'm not necessarily looking for interactive content. But I think sites
built with PHPNuke/Slash are tidy and clean looking. If the capabilities
are built in, it might also allow some newsfeeds and such. The target
site I'm thinking of is the SLUG site. Right now, it's built from mp4h
and make, with template files and content files edited by hand.
Content's fairly static, so refreshing the site is a matter of editing a
file, running make and make rsync. But it would be nice if I could make
a slicker site with less work (= prebuilt components). All the HTML on
SLUG is hand coded at this point.

(As a side note, it's interesting how website layout has sort of
stabilized. An awful lot of sites have very similar layouts, and not
just in the Open Source community. Reminds me of how automobile cockpit
layout has stabilized over the decades.)

> But the site I'm getting ready to put up, BuildProfitsOnline.com, will
> use flat HTML. I'll modify/create pages offline using OpenOffice and ftp
> them to the server. Cheaper, faster, easier, simpler. I'm only going to
> publish selected reader email or email excerpts anyway, not have open
> comment posting, and I'm only going to update the site once a week. If
> people want to yack more frequently, I'll give them an email list. I
> expect this to be a low volume site, probably fewer than 10,000
> pageviews per day, so there's no reason to get carried away with it.

I dunno... with a name like that, I'm guessing 10K pv/day sounds
conservative. ;-}

Paul



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:08:42 EDT