[TYPO3] Joomla! vs. Typo3

Tapio Markula tapio.markula at dnainternet.net
Thu Jul 20 12:10:18 CEST 2006

dave ashton wrote:
> Hi,
> Had a look at Joomla as I was getting completely frustrated with typo3
> (well, typoscript!)
> Joomla, to me, is good if you want a news or article type site.
> Out of the box, it is arranged in sections, categories and pages. You create
> menu's

typo creates the basic menu automatic on the base of the tree structure.
Additional menus are not not so easy for Typo (easy maintainance needs a 
special page, which has content element, which type is menu).

, then create section/categories/pages then create content, then say
> which cat./section/page you want the content putting.

the problems is that Mambo doesn't show the page structure crear
in the backend. It is impossible to figure site structure from simple 
list view - and simple list view can't *never* show pages of a big site.
It is impossible to keep large site with Mambo because you can't manage
it properly.
You can make contents for Mambo, which doesn't belong to any page - 
quite confusing.

> This process in Joomla, you seem to stuck with.
> Joomla seems to have lot of extensions that are plug and play (how well they
> work, I don't know)

Typo has some. But if plugins are plug'nplay withot configuration every
change = new version. You have soon tens of different versions of 
plugins, which are in long term in practise impossible to maintain.

> Typo3, I think, when you get the basics down, can be configured to look and
> work exactly as you want it, frontend and backend.
> It has a more logical way of setting up content - create pages (you can see
> these logically in the page tree) then put in content.

and easy to move pages from place to place. Moving content elements is 
also quite easy but not so easy as pages. Inside the same page very easy 
hovewer and cut/paste from page to page.

> However, typoscript is a big pain in the arse to learn IMHO.

true - it is pain for most users of Typo3.

> IMHO if you need a news article site only, with most stuff working out of
> the box, with not much else configured then Joomla might do it

yes - but remember, what problems you might encounter, if you can't 
configure plugins - if you need to modify source codes, you have 
*serious* update problems in future!

> for a year or two, (joomla is based on Mambo), clients can get confused with
> the cat/section page way of working.)

that's why I have never understood Mambo and resebling CMS

More information about the TYPO3-english mailing list