Hello. I am evaluating possible options on Content Management Solutions and web site functionality for a client. It will have interfaces to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Users could post blogs and upload files. Presently, they have built a site using DNN. But, following are the challenges that make us evaluate possible options for future expansion:
- Upgrading modules has always been challenging due to version compatibilities between different vendors (or even from the same vendor).
- Some modules don't provide the source code; so, can't be customized.
- Look & feel isn't consistent. The user experience and the flow aren't seamless and cohesive.
My questions are:
- How does Umbraco address above problems?
- Can we extend/customize the modules (packages) anyway we want?
Hi. I have some experience in both products, so I would share my two cents on it.
In my opinion DNN and Umbraco are very different by their ideologies. DNN is not a CMS actually - it's much more like a "portal framework" orbiting around building pages from precreated modules. On the contrary Umbraco is very content-centric and probably could require some time to get used to the way of thinking about the whole site as about a "content database" instead of a set of pages.
DNN has some advantages to be more friendly to the users without programming experience since it's possible to build a site just using existing modules with no knowledge about ASP.NET programming at all (providing that you do have all modules you need). However, the quite dissatractive thing about DNN is its "woodish" nature that you made a good point about - usually it's extremely hard to customise a delivered DNN module in a way you could need. On the other hand from the programmer's point of view creating a good-customisable versatile DNN module requires a good deal of efforts and time. Umbraco could require a bit more time to build a functional site from the ground, but it feels much more programmer-friendly. The architecture of Umbraco macros is much simpler than the one of DNN modules and doesn't require database programming as creating DNN modules usually does.
And the really big advantage of Umbraco macros is that most of them delivered in a form of plain text scripts (Xslt or Razor) that you can always modify to your needs without any rebuilding and redeploying and even on a live site.
Thanks a lot, Rodion. Your reply gives me some good perspectives. We are also evaluating Web Content Management products that are hosted in a cloud. I personally like Umbraco over DNN for the simple fact that the developer has more control.
I have worked with both DNN and Umbraco and since I understud how Umbraco works I haven't recommended a single person to go with DNN. Now when Umbraco supports the Razor syntax almoste anyone can build great sites with Umbraco without being a hardcore ASP.NET developer.
Umbraco vs DotNetNuke (DNN)
Hello. I am evaluating possible options on Content Management Solutions and web site functionality for a client. It will have interfaces to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Users could post blogs and upload files. Presently, they have built a site using DNN. But, following are the challenges that make us evaluate possible options for future expansion:
- Upgrading modules has always been challenging due to version compatibilities between different vendors (or even from the same vendor).
- Some modules don't provide the source code; so, can't be customized.
- Look & feel isn't consistent. The user experience and the flow aren't seamless and cohesive.
My questions are:
- How does Umbraco address above problems?
- Can we extend/customize the modules (packages) anyway we want?
Thanks a lot; appreciate your help.
henry, a.
Hi. I have some experience in both products, so I would share my two cents on it.
In my opinion DNN and Umbraco are very different by their ideologies. DNN is not a CMS actually - it's much more like a "portal framework" orbiting around building pages from precreated modules. On the contrary Umbraco is very content-centric and probably could require some time to get used to the way of thinking about the whole site as about a "content database" instead of a set of pages.
DNN has some advantages to be more friendly to the users without programming experience since it's possible to build a site just using existing modules with no knowledge about ASP.NET programming at all (providing that you do have all modules you need). However, the quite dissatractive thing about DNN is its "woodish" nature that you made a good point about - usually it's extremely hard to customise a delivered DNN module in a way you could need. On the other hand from the programmer's point of view creating a good-customisable versatile DNN module requires a good deal of efforts and time. Umbraco could require a bit more time to build a functional site from the ground, but it feels much more programmer-friendly. The architecture of Umbraco macros is much simpler than the one of DNN modules and doesn't require database programming as creating DNN modules usually does.
And the really big advantage of Umbraco macros is that most of them delivered in a form of plain text scripts (Xslt or Razor) that you can always modify to your needs without any rebuilding and redeploying and even on a live site.
Thanks a lot, Rodion. Your reply gives me some good perspectives. We are also evaluating Web Content Management products that are hosted in a cloud. I personally like Umbraco over DNN for the simple fact that the developer has more control.
cheers.
I have worked with both DNN and Umbraco and since I understud how Umbraco works I haven't recommended a single person to go with DNN. Now when Umbraco supports the Razor syntax almoste anyone can build great sites with Umbraco without being a hardcore ASP.NET developer.
Thanks, Markus. Based on what I have seen so far, I like Umbraco as well. It is on the short list of options we are contemplating.
I am also moving away from DNN because they have decided not to support Razor even in the future
is working on a reply...