CMS Made Simple

My views; -first things first; We need a team which tests all currently downloadable modules. All the modules which dont work with version 1.1 needs to be deleted, or in de different part "broken modules" but i prefer simply deleting. Off course one week before deleting a non-compatible module the main developer needs to be send an email if he`s willing to rewrite the module which will make in compatible. -This will decrease the number of 3rd party modules, and with less modules, it will be easier for a (new) team of say like 5 people or so, to look over the code of all modules, and keep track of new modules. There is no bulletproof system but i think this way quality will increase. I`m going on vacation tommorow for 2 weeks, but I`m happy to help when my vacation is finished in 2 weeks, your always welcome to send an email if there`s anything I can help with.

Why not create two classes of modules: "official" and "user published"? The "official" modules will have to be tested by a dev-team and meet certain standards (as to documentation etc). The "user published" modules, on the other hand, will be more on-your-own-risk, but still make it easy to find and share codes for users. When a "user published" module has proven stable etc, it can be moved up to "official".

How about releasing a document stating the coding conventions? Once you have a guideline, then you can have something to review submissions with. It would also help promote and produce uniformity of the modules, and perhaps make the reviewing easier. Something like this, but perhaps a bit less stringent http://www.dagbladet.no/development/phpcodingstandard/

I agree with Signex. There needs to be "review and approved" stamp on all quality modules. Mozilla does something similar with "Recommended Modules."

I'm willing to help with testing from an end user's perspective. However, I wonder if most of the problems folks have are from old modules still hanging around. Maybe all modules listed in the Trove should have an expiration date so as they get 'stale' there can be a statement that simply says, "Last update to this module was 120 days ago..." locating in the summary page, for example.

We have also experienced a wide range of quality among the modules. Often it results in us developing our own stuff, since it tends to be faster that correcting buggs. Mats Ingelströms idea seems to be a good one - release modules in two different classes.

I like Mats Ingelströms idea too. I think the two sets need to be clearly separated, and not just marked with a "reviewed and approved" message when viewing the module. The default should be just to search and browse the "approved" modules, since most users want something which they should be able to get running without too much hassle. If they can't find what they are looking for there then they might want to have a look at the user published modules. I think the problem really is that the developers' forge is trying to do two jobs - sharing code between people who want to play with PHP and extend CMS, and publishing useful modules to people who just want to use CMS to run a website.

We had a dev meeting yesterday and this was one of the main topics of discussion. We think there are several things that could help this situation... 1. User rating and comments for modules. These would be designated on the project's front page and should also show through to the module manager. 2. Automatically designate projects that are older than 6 months (no releases or svn activity) as being inactive. These projects can then be easily gone through by either the dev team or another group we designate to be removed if they're too far gone. 3. As you've guys have discussed -- some kind of review board. Modules that have been reviewed by a member of this group could have some kind of official seal or something put on it. "This module worked satifcatory (not necessarily bug-free or feature complete, mind you... just working good enough) with version 1.x". Again, this would show through to the module manager in some way. The nice thing is that since we're also in the process of rewriting the forge, we can do whatever we want with workflow. One of the items that we're going to handle at the Copenhagen meeting is the walkthrough of a project from beginning to end to decommissioning. Once that workflow is set, then we get someone to help us finish the new forge. Thanks again for all the feedback! As usual, it always makes me smile when I see that people care about this project as much as I do.

Looks like a great plan. I notice some modules continue to work with every CMSMS version. Bookmarks still works perfectly with version 1.1 and hasn't been updated since August 1st 2006. Because of this I am glad to see the idea of a review board that will be able to verify that some of the older modules will work with the latest CMSMS version even though the module may be dated.

I've been working for some time with CMSMS. I looked at different CMS before and CMSMS was just the thing, I was looking for. It is simple and meets my requirements. I looked at different modules and sometimes I became a little bit frustrated when some module wouldn't work with the CMSMS version I was using. Upgrading ist always a bit of a chalange, will a module still work or not? I think everything has been told before and an increase in quality assurance and release management that shows which module works with which version of CMSMS would be a good thing. CMSMS is a great tool and you guys do a very good job!

I think that developers has not much time to test their modules with all version. Other user ors developers can report when they uses that modules. I think it better

I understand Ted's frustration but this is just *one* review which is a bit negative. You won't get 100% positive reviews, every once in a while someone will say "this cms sucks", for whatever reason. It is plain bad luck that right now that comment is showing at the top ... if everyone who hasn't already written a comment would write one it would be more in context. Nevertheless I agree that the modules need to be approved. If there will be some kind of "user approval" I'd be happy to help. Keep up the good work! Alex

I'm in a similar position as Rob who just published other than I've set up quite a few custom sites for clients using CMSMS. I've also tried and tested everything from DNN to WordPress and obviously I'm a huge fan of CMSMS so much so that our entire web development approach, sans ecommerce, has CMSMS for the foundation. However, I totally agree with the criticism posted at opensourcecms.com. And I agree with those who suggested: There needs to be “review and approved” stamp on all quality modules. Mozilla does something similar with “Recommended Modules.” While I'm adept at designing around, customizing, and optimmizing CMSMS (call me a power user I guess) I don't have the ability to be a heavy duty developer in the PHP world. However, with the above conditions being taken into consider, I would like to volunteer to be utilized in the process...maybe as an official beta tester or something. If anyone has any insight on those of us who are not developers to participate please let me know.

I downloaded and installed CMSMS a week ago for a friend. I had used an earlier version several years ago and was excited to try the new one. It installed great, and then I went looking for some modules. I installed half a dozen or so, but one I installed completely broke CMSMS. (And I can't remember the name of it right now, don't you love this helpful post!) I was able to hack around and get it uninstalled/removed by installing "older" versions of it and then removing them one at a time. Needless to say, I am steering clear of all but the most basic modules. I agree with all the above, some kind of tiered system or "official" modules and the rest are use at your own risk/take it up with the module dev. I use IPCop (firewall/router) in some places, and there they have a team that just does the basics (IPCop), and then others who work with addons (content filtering/spam protection, etc) etc. Addons are "use at your own risk" but they do increase the functionality for those willing to work more/risk more. Todd

- My 2 cents worth. still being fairly new to cms, unfortunately I must agree with the comments of some users about the mods. I have had a play with quite a few of them, and most need 'tweaking' before they work as they should. I really like the idea of maybe having a table that displays which mods are compatible with which versions of cms, as well as a voting + comments system where users can leave feedback for other users & developers. What about having a commercial mods area? I use a number of other open source programs one of which is izabi (a social networking platform), there they have a model where some of the mods are free, and some of them are 'commercial' mods, it seems to me that developers would be a lot more inclined to develop mods that 'just work' if they saw a monetary return for their efforts. After all that is all anyone wants when installing a mod, especially with such a great backbone application like cms, which 'just works'. The commercial mods don't have to be enourmously expensive for it to make it worthwhile for developers, as if they create useful mods' that work', they will obviously sell quite a few. That way everyone wins, developers get paid for their time, users get mods that work. It would also be a great way for the core developers of cms to get some much needed funds, being the core developers, who knows the program better? I for one would love to see (and be willing to pay for) "official" commercial mods made, that work as beautifully as the core cms program does. End of mini rant. :)

IMO it would be a start to really make use of the dev.cmsmadesimple.org website. ATM virtually all discussion about modules (and problems with them) is taking place at the general forums. That's not where it belongs though. Result: people who are just visiting dev.cmsmadesimple.org get the feeling as if the module they're after has been abandoned since no discussion is taking place there. So module creaters should really give support where it's due and not in the general forums.

Some additional text to the previous post. New users will then find it easier to choose for several modules, as they don't have to do all the search for modules by themselves. Once again, Ronny

Reading what has been posted, there were two thoughts that came to mind: second that the idea of a two levels seems to be a good one. I also take the point about lack of capacity. Nevertheless, I think that even if 4 or 5 modules were cleared it would help users, albeit flagging that it will always be an on-going process. The first thought, however, was the negative review. As faqlork writes, there is no such thing as a set of perfect reviews. I was a little alarmed that there has only been a small discussion on how to deal with the bad press. As a very green newbie, it is not only a matter of loyalty to CMSMS but also about ensuring that a good product remains publically attractive to the broader community. It would be a pity if people were turned off from using, enjoying and being supported in their work simply from a weak review. I would simply like to suggest that anyone who feels sufficiently motivated by the comment or have been supported by CMSMS should post fair comments on the original website opensourcecms.com. For myself, I am amazed not only at how far it is possible to play around with CMSMS but also two further things. 1. without any initial idea of CSS, PHP MySQL etc it is incredible how far you can go and pick things up. 2. the online forum (especially 'carpenter' Mark and Ronny K) is speedy, dedicated, friendly and diplomatic enough not to point out that they have already told a hundred other people the same answer. It is a lovely and fun place to start my website life. It would be a pity if others were deterred from this.

I believe that this has been the 400 lb. gorilla in the room that no one wanted to talk about. This is a very healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas. I believe that we cannot let this momentum die down. You can tell by the post that there are plenty of people who care about the future of CMSMS. We should be excited, because many entities travel blindly down the road with hardly an inkling of what their users/clients really want or need. This is not the case now. There is a clear direction. Ok, so we all agree that changes have to be made. What are the steps that we are going to take to travel in this direction now? The discussion has been great. I would like hear some sort of a tentative plan of action from the CMSMS gods. We know where we are. We know where we need to be. Now how are we going to get there? I am enthusiastic to see what comes out of this point of crisis. Is this the breaking point for CMSMS or is this the start of a new season of growth and creativity for the project? I hope for the latter.

Dear Ted, I have always been and continue to be a HUGE fan of cmsmadesimple. I have checked out virtually every PHP MySQL CMS out there and cmsmadesimple has the best admin (backend) interface I've found and while it may lack the scope of Joomla or Drupal it just plain rocks. After many years of studying the Internet, Open Source, CMS and the like I've come to one conclusion. the number one weakness of most Open Source projects it the lack of good Documentation and Training. If the people who write the code could just understand how important this is. No matter how good the tool you create if no one can figure out how to use it it becomes virtually useless. The folks that write the modules for cmsmadesimple must understand that clear easy to read instructions are critcal to the successful use of their module. Forums are great, help is fine but good Documentation is absolutlely key to the use and adoption of any software. Thanks again to everyone for providing us with cmsmadesimple and it's add ons now please document clearly how to use them.

Hi all, i've read near all the posts here. The "official" module flag is a good thing to find working modules. I don't think that a lot and a lot of modules is needed to have a good cms, i prefer have 2 or 3 third party mods they work correctly and are usefull. CmsMS is "young" instead of Joomla or others cms, but it's a very good tool for the moment, so with a little time modules will be better. 2 global suggestions or ideas (perhaps not the good place...) : > in a way of showing that CmsMS is a quality tool, why don't we use a latest version with a clean design? Interested designers will send an "up to date" logotype and global design propostition (screenshots), and community will vote for the best. As designer, i know how the first impression can be important for future users, and would be happy to contribute to made cmsMs more "sexy". > about the devs: i think the permanent (or official) devs must be more visible on this site. Why? There are 2 categories of cms users : pros and particulars. Pros need to have contact with a strong team in a way to build custom mods for example for their cutsomers. I think that a dedicated page for the 'official' devs would be useful, and imagine that it can bring more money and more quickly that waiting for donations...

This text was translated by Babel Fish. The modules are reliably a large problem with CMSMS and it are for a long time well-known. In the forums those write user already for a long time over problems - at most over module problems. These contributions cost more time as if a core Developer of modules from the Top Ten gradually on the current conditions bring. You should not believe, that programmers wait to write modules for CMSMS. There nobody waits for it. Co-ordinates, which modules at most are needed and take these into the core. The Top Ten cannot be so wrong, which one could not update her fast. 95% of all modules of projects can be deleted immediately.

I think it is a good thing to have a discussion like this, also in mind that 2.0 is coming and that it's good to have a solid structure from that moment on. I think that the signals that are given, also the one Ted mentioned to start this thread, are a good trigger to rethink the structure. In organisations that deal with growth, this is a normal process. You can't keep growing without (at least thinking) about restructuring. I think that the signals make it clear that CMSMS has grown, and that some action is required to make the next jump in growth/quality possible. I think that the release of 2.0 will be a good starting point to work with the changed module-system. That's a good moment as well to leave some unattended modules behind, and only go with the ones working (correctly) on 2.0. Ronny

I'm new to CMSMS and have successfully installed it. I'm very comfortable working with XHTML, PHP, CSS, and JavaScript and am working through setting up the templates and stylesheets. Based on the comment about the modules in the OpenSource CMS comment, I hoped to find information for recommended, and stable, modules on the site for CMSMS newbies. I would rather avoid the issues dwave wrote about, installing modules, and then spending days debugging them. So far, I haven't found a stable/recommended modules list despite searching the forums over the weekend. Does it exist? Ronnie mentioned a forum thread (above in one of his comments) about module recommendations. However, the thread doesn't include any suggestions.

There is alot of talk in the comments here and I just on't have time to read it all right now. But I wanted to just say I think CMSMS is the best CMS I've come across, biggest reason being for ease to design for. I love that it's completely CSS based. It is absolutely a dream to build a site on it, and have it look however you want (Anyone ever noticed how you can peg a Joomla site from a mile away?). Alot of talk is no doubt going on above about how to make the module environment better. I don't need to chime in on that. I want to stress that CMSMS is an outstanding CMS that I love dearly and am so very happy I found.

"The quality of the user-submitted modules is abysmal. " It's true. In itself CMSMS is very good. But just go to module manager after you've installed it: not all the modules available on the site can be installed because not all of them show up in the module manager. You have to go to http://cmsmadesimple.org/downloads to see all the modules and what do you see once you get there? I'll bet more than half of the listings "haven't released any files" or are at some alpha stage. And even the ones that are past the beta stage are still outdated or don't work right. I'm using the Google Sitemap module. I don't know if any other cms does that, but I'm afraid this module will fade away for the next version. These are the problems you have to tackle: remove old/outdated/inactive modules keep the essential modules or integrate some of them in the cms installation

Just installed a new system, and this time frustration set in ... :-(((( IF there will be "approved" modules, I suggest (beg! demand! whatever!) that only modules with a useful documentation get "approved" status. Sometimes I feel downright silly, when the "help screen" does not even mention the setting of the module's admin options and - after unsuccessfully searching the forge (and clicking on the "module homepage" link just to find out that the homepage does not even exist) - I have to ask the forum or plunge into the source code to find out what the heck this or that option means ... Just like many others I have tried and installed gazillions (ok, make that about 30 ..) CMS systems until I found CMSMS, which was love on first sight. My time is scarce, but I will offer any help I can give ... testing modules ... translate module docs into german ... Cheers, Alex

CMSMS = totally fantastic and awesome, so please dev team, don't get down-heartened by a few negative comments. You've produced a fantastic system that I use and recommend wherever I can. However, the modules system is certainly the weak point of CMSMS and would benefit from improvement. So a few suggestions, in addition to all the others already made: In the to-be-revised module listings every module should have listed with it: * The module name * This module is compatible with CMSMS x.xx, x.xx, x.xx * This module is version x.xx * The last release of this module was on yyyy/mm/dd Maybe this information should be included in the module code as standard, so that a module could check with the central modules page and alert a CMSMS administrator that "Hey! There's a new version of me available that works with this version of CMSMS! Do you want to upgrade?" Every module should have full documentation in a standardised format. Too many slip by with only a version number and one line of text. As others have said, an official "seal of approval" for modules that certifies they are maintained and compatible with the latest release. The onus should be on the module maintainer to submit this evidence? Every module should have a forum associated with it to address support requests. No more getting module help requests mixed up with CMSMS requests. Perhaps some modules should be included in the CMSMS core? Calendar and Album are used by nearly everyone. A more obvious and easy to use bug tracking system. It's quite hidden at the moment. This new system could have categories for the various 3rd party modules? Some modules could do with learning techniques from each other. e.g. Every module should learn from the FormBuilder module - it has the wonderful feature of printing the browser alias string that needs to be pasted into a page, so it can be easily copy'n'pasted. (BTW, this is a major sticking point for our users)

I've been a big advocate for CMSMS and have donated into the development kitty with every client site I've done. There's a lot of discussion about modules, and a lot of outstanding input. I want to call attention to something related that I've noticed and is a common theme in many of these comments: the difficulty in finding (and sharing) good information. There are two main information systems for CMSMS: the wiki and the forums. Right now, the wiki is harder to use for seekers and contributors than it should be. As a seeker, tips and tags are rather scattered around, and most are organized by the solution mechanism (user-defined tag, etc.) rather than the problem to be solved. And that leads people to turn to the forums for everything. I've seen far too many repeat-topic forum posts since I started working with CMSMS. In the forum, reusable tips -- those that can benefit lots of users, not just fix an individual's issues -- scroll away too quickly. Sometimes the best tips are in threads you'd never think to read or search in. Later, if you remember seeing a tip, you'll have to hunt around to find it again. If you do a forum search, there's a lot of hay to paw through before you find your needle. As a past active forum and wiki contributor, I've sometimes seen or come up with good tips, but it's never been clear exactly where I should post them in the wiki, where they would be easier for others to find and use. Many times, rather than take on the additional task of figuring that out too, I didn't bother. Wikis, in shunning hierarchies, usually need extra editorial guidance to set up intuitive "spaces" for users to add information. The wiki hasn't kept pace with some of the potentially great core features like the Events Manager trigger capability. The one example on the wiki page "sends an email when page content is changed," but doesn't show anything about how data on the changed object (page title, user who made the change, etc.) would be accessed and manipulated. I'd love to develop a tag to check page content to help remind my less-technical clients not to image leech from other websites, for example, but I don't have the time to hunt for documentation on the feature. Lastly, frequently-desired, highly-customizable add-ons like Tags, Modules, and Themes need better visibility and access. Competing CMS sites put these things right in their main navigation. Pull them up where people can see and use them. Then, as others have said and Ted has supported, give easy-to-use feedback mechanisms for them. If a module developer didn't document something crucial, a user can post a note on that module to help or warn the next person. If the module is fabulous, or isn't compatible, or people don't like it, give them a mechanism to rate and rank. Having worked with a couple of other content systems, I strongly favor and support CMSMS, and would like to see it get more visibility, use and enhancements. Don't mistake the critique for negativity -- these issues are very fixable. The message developers should be getting is "help us help you." Good information leverages a great system: newbies can get results and experience faster, and more advanced users can understand more of the nuances of the system to build on it and on each other's ideas. I think Josh's quote earlier is perfect: "Quality attracts talent."

My suggestion get someone to write an o'reilly style cookbook ! I am very new to CMSMS (2weeks) coming on to an existing project which was running very late so my views may be just a little coloured - we are modifying some modules & writing a brand new one I have been struck by the differences in the way modules are coded and this has a huge impact on maintainability some are well abstracted & some are just plain shite - some use function.xyz.php where others use action.xyz.php to do the same thing - soem do everything in one block of php code (validate & display form - other break this into 2 ) - some some store templates in the datatbase some dont - some style everything with divs - others dont , and all seem to reflect a different viewpoint on how CMS operates under the hood When we are trying to do the new module we have picked one of the better ones to use as guide as to how to do things even though it is in a different problem domain. So I guess want I want to say is after v 2 is released STOP development for a few weeks except for vital bug fixes and DOCUMENT how CMSMS works and how bits interact with core - some simple state / block/ activity diagram (ie swim lanes) diagrams (as appropriate) are all that are required so I can see ok I need this kind of set of functions here, those sorts over there and they are connected by... etc etc - this would have saved us an enormous amount of time (note I could put nearly this same post on any number of open source projects forums - etc) Having added my 2c - let me say I am converting all my sites CMSMS because it IS so extendable

Open source is a wonderful concept. But the reality is that it is always a calculated risk to use an open source CMS for any client’s project. The real question, is why are web site designers and developers looking at open source solutions? Mostly to save money; to be competitive; to offer great solutions to businesses and non-profits with little budget. To save money doesn’t mean that a solution as to be free – it just needs to be the right amount. Like a few others have said, other CMSs offer modules for a minimal fee. Most of the time, these are polished, well documented, almost bug-free, and with good support. We all have to make money to live! I am completely supporting Franklin’s proposition (response #9) to create some funding pool per modules. I do not believe that it is against an “open source” concept – those who can afford to financially support a module development will understand that it benefits the majority of those who can’t. I will be one of the first to do so. (To tell you the truth, this money will ultimately be charged to my clients over one or more projects.) To this funding approach I will just add one other suggestion: what about a thank-you in the form of a banner advertising -- or/and service directory listing -- for my/your services? Keep the good work! I have discovered CMSms a few weeks ago and like many I fell in love with its simplicity and huge potential. Michel

On that last note, how about a competition: Redesign the CSS for the website/admin panel.

What an interesting thread this is! I came to CMSMS at version 1.1. Over the weekend, I upgraded to 1.1.1. I'm currently working on two local test sites and one remote test site. The upgrade seems to be working fine. The assumption I make is that 1.1.1 is the most up to date and stable release, so that's what I should use. But when I read earlier on in this topic that some support requests relate to 0.13, I wonder if I'm right! Surely what all of us who use, or plan to implement client sites with CMSMS need, is a stable core version and that's surely 1.1.1? Is there any real reason for having previous versions available for download? Does this not detract from progessing the CMSMS project? What we'd also like is Modules that have the approved stamp, because they've been tested and they work. This would be a great confidence booster in introducing new features and functionality, especially to clients. Modules without the approved stamp would remain "use at your own risk," but again surely the goal here is for eventual approval? If not, there seems little point in having them! Documentation is vital, but it's a massive area. It seems to me there are three requirements. Installation, locally and remotely which is covered to some extent. Implementation - there's got to be a best practices guide out there somewhere! User Guide, well this would be veritable treasure trove. I'd be delighted to collaborate and get involved on the latter two areas. Thanks all. In my view CMSMS is just great and we can all help to make it even better.

This is coming from a guy who develops about 50 sites per year... some are small Static HTML (Dreamweaver/templated), but I get quite a few mid-size sites and large/busy sites as well. I do e-commerce, real estate, manufacturing, insurance, banking sites... customers that need robust and reliable solutions. For paid CMS sites, I use Joomla, for nonprofit sites I use Joomla or Wordpress, and for personal sites I choose Wordpress. I also work on some legacy sites that are mainly static HTML with some custom PHP for page editing, forms processing, shopping carts, etc. I've begun a few sites with CMSMS, but have been very frustrated by the lack of functionality of the addons. Because you can access the modules from the Admin interface, it appears to a newbie that they might be somehow approved/tested/up-to-date/functional, etc. Not the case, as we all quickly learn. It looked like a nice feature initially, but I suggest you move it out of the Admin and use something more along the lines of Joomla or Wordpress... where you search out addons, read user comments and ratings, then go to a dev repository or homepage site to read more & download, then go to the core and install/publish/integrate. In the best of all possible worlds, we'd all have offline duplicate dev sites... but I will tell you that is not how I do it because I work in a NOC, so I am a hosting admin working on a local net, and can easily and quickly restore a site if it gets hosed. I always test addons on a playground site prior to live implementation on a client site, but I don't generally do a parallel dev site except with phpBB, due to the need to change core files to add features. Joomla has a huge installed base and communities that produce some top-notch components... I'm thinking VirtueMart, JCE editor, Hot Properties... I can use these for high-level sites and not disappoint clients with buggy interface, spotty browser compatibility, or major security issues. These are pay-to-play components, but they are worth it. Likewise the pay-to-play templates. Support is quick and readily available for the pay-to-play addons. Wordpress is so simple to teach and use, perfect for content-heavy sites with a few plugins such as Event Calendar, SEO Pack, runPHP, FlashEmbed, RS Sitemap, PodPress, etc. If I have questions or issues, I can search out an answer very quickly or get some help on the forums. I have not had the same success with CMSMS. I would consider using it and hacking in my own plugins, but then I might get bound to a certain version and have to skip upgrades. You guys are dealing with major security issues still, while WP and Joomla (and even phpBB) seem to have moved beyond major security holes. I'm not saying they are exploit free... but their upgrade notifications have been quick, and their upgrade paths have been glitch-free for me (for the most part). I'll generally wait a few days after an update to see what problems folks who use my favorite addons are experiencing... just to be on the safe side and not break a client site. If it's a major security hole, I will patch ASAP and be prepared with an immediate revert in case of problems. I'm comfortable with Wordpress and Joomla, and they have served me well in producing client sites. I had great hopes for CMSMS, but I've always run into problems early during a site build, and have had to jump ship and move back to WP or Joomla because I know I can find gazillions of good templates, plugins and modules... and I know how to backtrack when something goes wrong. I'm also quite familiar with phpBB, so I know it can take a ton of coding & server optimization to get a site properly configured and functional... so I really don't have an issue with that level of involvement with coding/upgrades/backups. However, I choose the ease of upgrading Joomla or Wordpress, and the speed at which my favorite components/plugins/modules get improved/normalized for new versions of the core. Bottom line, I will continue to use Joomla and Wordpress for CMS sites because the support for modules/plugins is great and because the user communities are plentiful and helpful. I'd truly like to use CMSMS due to the integration of CSS and the quickness of CMSMS sites compared to Joomla... but I need something that is a bit more stable and well-supported. I suppose if I became more active in the CMSMS community my problems would evaporate. I will commit to re-doing my personal site with CMSMS and if it works for me there, I will begin using for client sites.

I agree with Joel. There are too many modules that reproduce functionality poorly rather than a few modules that provide unique functionality and are well coded, well-documented and well-thought out. There is great potential in CMSMS but it really is hampered by buggy modules. I have had to hack modules serveral times to get functionality to work that is supposed to work out of the box; or where half the functionality worked when ported to postgresql (from mysql), but half did not because the sql was mysql specific. Also, some modules offer non-standards-compliant output and out put that is just not cross-browser (like form builder). This is so lamentable precisely because it is also so easily preventable. Rather than everybody going off to produce a different module which they may then fail to maintain (often through no fault greater than insufficient time and resources), it would be better if the modules were not so much the projects of individuals, but rather of teams -- with a central location for bug reports where there would also be some likelihood that bugs would be addressed with fair alacrity. This is why team development would be adventitious. Ted could provide a guiding vision (code standards, feature steering, etc.), and the team could work within those guidelines as creatively and professionally as possible. to create modules offering obvious value, strong feature sets, and clean code while also being standards-compliant, cross-browser, and well-documented. It is easy to dream: how to implement this is another matter. Any suggestions?

Something as simple as sorting news categories by name on the front-end is not even a possibility. I think the fundamental functionality of the core modules need to be fixed first in order for the project gain some integrity.