Link Details

Pretty well constructed arguments here. A nice lengthy post, too.

page kills firefox

http://opera.com

Time to get a new computer, wilcode4beer!

wordpress is a cms?

It clearly states in the article, "WordPress can also be used to manage basic websites; however, we strongly recommend using Drupal or ExpressionEngine to manage medium to large size websites. WordPress really shines as a blog management tool."

Is WordPress a CMS? Absolutely. It's not as powerful as Drupal or ExpressionEngine, however, it is a Web-based CMS geared more towards blogs.

Not really sure a down vote is justified since WordPress is a CMS?

Security (keep the bad guys out) - oh really? :)
Cost-effective (save some serious money) - on what?
Customization (CSS, plugins, modules, etc.) - or "save some time to do what you need on the first place"
Information stored in database (data can be easily backed up) - =))) how is that CMS advantage?

Did you bother reading the article?

the whole article? there is nothing i dont know, why?

"Security (keep the bad guys out) - oh really? :) "

I'm not saying that you can't hack a CMS, however, I am saying that it is most likely going to be more difficult than hacking a website built from scratch. Most of the popular CMSs are strenuously tested to ensure minimal security exploits - people wouldn't use them if they weren't considerably safe.

"Cost-effective (save some serious money) - on what? "

This is why I asked you if you read the article. Every point lists a reason why a CMS will save the client money, and all but 2 or 3 of the reasons explain how a developer will save money. If you're asking "on what", chances are you didn't read the article since one of the primary focuses of the article was on how to save money by using a CMS.

"Customization (CSS, plugins, modules, etc.) - or "save some time to do what you need on the first place""

This makes absolutely no sense.

"Information stored in database (data can be easily backed up) - =))) how is that CMS advantage?"

Again, did you read the article? Compared to having a website with tons of files, you can edit the content and in some cases, the style information, through the CMS itself. Hence, all of the information is stored in a database, making it a much easier and much lighter solution. You don't have to worry about file backups and can instead focus on database backups.

#1 depends a lot on who's doing what and with what technology.

His point with #3 is that you're going to have to do CSS and all that jazz no matter what solution you pick.

On #4, I think what he's saying is that any solution will need to be backed up too.

#2, I can understand your objection :)

Thanks for the reply, dragmire.

"On #4, I think what he's saying is that any solution will need to be backed up too. "

Perhaps this point in the article was misleading. If you read the actual details of this point, however, you will find:

"Although every WCMS comes packaged with template files, all data is stored in a MySQL database(s). This makes it possible to edit your website’s information from within a web browser (instead of a bulky application such as DreamWeaver). It also allows you to edit your website’s information from anywhere that has an Internet connection and a web browser."

So although we have said that it is very easy to backup your entire website by simply backing up the MySQL database on a regular basis, the more important benefit to having your content stored in a database is that you can access the CMS at any location that has an Internet connection and a web browser (compare that to having to lug around a laptop of an external hard drive with your website's files).

"#2, I can understand your objection :)"

I'm glad you can at least see this! :)