[aclug-L] Re: volunteers

[Clint Brubakken <cabrubak@xxxxxxx>]

I disagree with that. 

As its already written in Zope, we can extend and change it, with out
rewriting the whole thing. 

Another advantage is the I know several of the commitee, already know
zope and as there already involved in working with ACLUG I would think
they would also help with the website, and can help teach others.

Also ACLUG has  books in the library about Zope and Web Programming in
Python

And a completly biased opinion, is that I know and like zope.  

I don't know much about OpenACS so I can't argue its merits vs Zope, but
I can tell you things I like about zope. 

Everything can be done through the web (TTW) or via ftp. 

It has built in user permissions and roles and different access levels,
and a built in authentication system. 

It has several prebuilt products, including wiki's. 

and the people in the #zope channel on openprojects are actually helpful

On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 14:46, Tom Hull wrote:
> 
> Jonathan Hall wrote:
> > 
> > The existing site uses Zope, which is much like OpenACS in many ways.  I
> > believe Zope is actually a much more feature-rich application than OpenACS,
> > although OpenACS is probably more 'mature'.  Unless there's a good reason to
> > switch to OpenACS, I suspect Zope is the better way to go... simply because
> > we have a server on an OC-3 already running zope :)
> 
> I don't buy the argument that we should use Zope because it's what is already
> in use (which we've pretty much agreed is wanting). I also think that the
> hosting question should be separate from tools/content development (although
> the latter may impose some requirements that limit hosting choices; traffic
> and dataset size also impose requirements).
> 
> The real question is whether Zope is really better (multifaceted word) than
> OpenACS for our requirements. At this point I don't know Zope (or Python), and
> would appreciate any insights from anyone who has experience with Zope and/or
> OpenACS.
> 
> The other thing is to work out a list of things people would like to see on
> the website.
> 
> > There was some dicusssion on the committee list about moving the server back
> > to Kansas, and some suggested leaving it on the OC-3 is best.  I'm still not
> > entirely convinced, though.
> > 
> > I think if we have people willing and able to work on the software, we sorta
> > need the server where they can use it... Perhaps we can get a good
> > colocation deal from a local ISP?  Maybe iWichita, Websurf, Datility?
> > Something that would give us enough bandwidht, but also local access if/when
> > necessary?
> 
> -- 
> /*
>  *  Tom Hull * thull at kscable.com * http://www.tomhull.com/
>  */
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi


-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi