top button
Flag Notify
    Connect to us
      Facebook Login
      Site Registration Why to Join

Facebook Login
Site Registration
Print Preview

How is DNN compared to other CMS?

+2 votes

This is basically to figure out if dotnetnuke is better than other .net based content management systems

posted Jun 30, 2013 by Kapil Khanna

Share this question
Facebook Share Button Twitter Share Button Google+ Share Button LinkedIn Share Button Multiple Social Share Button

1 Answer

+1 vote

I have used both DNN and Drupal to build fairly large, content-based sites. My focus is more on the production side... UI/themeing, module configuration, etc. I'm sold on Drupal, but there may be other choices that meet your needs just as well. I just happened to work with both systems in recent months.

Drupal's core taxonomy module gives you the benefit of creating a relationship between different kinds of content. If you have "article" and "video" content types, you can easily display data from both types based on the shared taxonomy terms. This is huge and something DNN lacks.

Drupal's hook system is also a big benefit when building your own modules or creating "sub-modules" to alter or add to the default functionality of an existing module. This allows you to customize functionality or take advantage of another module's functionality as your application runs. If you purchase a module for DNN, you will have to alter the module if it doesn't meet your needs. Once you do this, you will need to update it each time there's a new release that you would like to take advantage of. DNN modules seem to be more stand-alone solutions. For example, if a DNN module has a rating system, it's only a part of that solution. With Drupal, I can use the "5 Star" rating module in my forums, my blogs, my articles, my videos, etc. There's central configuration for it and I only theme it once.

The themeing layer in Drupal also gives you a large amount of flexibility in that process. My frustration with themeing DNN sites was that I was stuck working with the markup the developer used, with no option for altering the output without hacking the module. With theme hooks and function overrides, I can change the output from those modules to meet my needs (not completely sometimes, but enough), without touching the module code itself.

The biggest problem I had with DNN modules, including some of the most popular, was just a lack of documentation or discussions available for how to achieve your goal. While Drupal's forums can be hard to navigate and you might not always find the answer you are looking for, there are many outlets for gathering information. Honestly, using DNN made me appreciate the community approach of Drupal more.

I was left feeling that DNN would be fine for building sites with more basic needs. But for that, I would still choose something like WordPress or Joomla, considering they have much larger user bases and, in my opinion, are more sophisticated.

answer Jun 30, 2013 by anonymous
Similar Questions
0 votes

I have deployed two Ruby on Rails sites on WebFaction, and Passenger Rack takes up around 60 MB of memory apiece.

I was planning on replacing my Drupal web sites with Rails, but I'm now considering replacing these Drupal sites with Django. Given that the baseline memory consumption for a Rails site is around 60 MB, how would a Django site compare?

0 votes

I've been testing SCTP throughput between two nodes over a 10Gb-Ethernet backplane, and am finding that at best, its throughput is about a third of that of TCP. Is this number generally accepted for current LKSCTP performance?

All TCP/SCTP tests performed with 1000-byte (payload) messages, between 8-core Xeon nodes @ 2.13GHz, with no CPU throttling (always running at 100%) on otherwise idle systems. Test applications include netperf, iperf and proprietary in-house stubs.

The latency between nodes is generally 0.2 ms. Tests were run using this low-latency scenario, as well as using traffic control (tc) to simulate networks with 10 ms, 20 ms and 50 ms latency (i.e. 20 ms, 40 ms and 100 ms RTT, respectively).

In addition, each of these network scenarios were tested using various kernel socket buffer sizes, ranging from the default kernel size (100-200 kB), to several MB for send and receive buffers, and multiple send:receive ratios for these buffer sizes (generally using larger receive buffer sizes, up to a factor of about 6).

Finally, tests were performed on kernels as old as 3.4.2 and as recent as 3.14. The TCP throughput is about 3x higher than that of SCTP as a best-case scenario (i.e. from an SCTP perspective), and much higher still in worst-case scenarios.

Useful Links with Similar Problem
Contact Us
+91 9880187415
#280, 3rd floor, 5th Main
6th Sector, HSR Layout
Karnataka INDIA.