From scott at illogics.org  Tue Jan 29 16:36:48 2008
From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:36:48 -0700
Subject: [Phoenix-pm] PLUG DEV meeting Thurs 2/7/2008 7pm
Message-ID: <20080130003648.GF6074@slowass.net>

The Phoenix Linux User Group is having a developer's meeting in
downtown Phoenix.  Topics are currently open so there's
probably room for a Perl talk if someone wants to present.

Time:     Thurs 2/7/2008 7pm
Location: Downtown Phoenix; Adtron Corporation, 4415 E. Cotton Center Blvd., Phoenix, AZ 82040
Topic:    FOSS software development
Other:    Come hang with Perl and Unix developers

http://plug.phoenix.az.us/?q=node/46

http://www.google.com/maps?q=4415+E+Cotton+Center+Blvd,+Phoenix,+AZ+85040,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=33.403215,-111.986926&spn=0.008545,0.015578&t=h&z=16&iwloc=addr&om=1

RSVPs not required but posting to the list saying that you're going
(or probably going) will encourage others to go as well.

-scott


From perlguy at earthlink.net  Thu Jan 31 09:36:29 2008
From: perlguy at earthlink.net (Douglas E. Miles)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:36:29 -0700
Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems
Message-ID: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net>

All,

This is somewhat off topic.  Does anybody out there have any experience 
with so-called Enterprise content management systems?  I'm talking about 
systems from Interwoven, Vignette, Documentum, etc.  I'd like to hear 
about any recommendations or good/bad experiences.  To make this more on 
topic:  I'm especially interested to hear if Interwoven's TeamSite still 
uses Perl.  The only information I can find is from 5-6 years ago.  If 
it does, and it meets our other criteria, I'd certainly love to make a 
case for it. :)  Thanks!

From scott at illogics.org  Thu Jan 31 11:40:44 2008
From: scott at illogics.org (Scott Walters)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:40:44 -0700
Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems
In-Reply-To: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net>
References: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net>

Hey Doug,

I didn't have to work with any of these directly, but I worked
with people who did, at Mot*rola.  My take on it is they're
all like aspirin... by the time you really need them to the
point where you'll go get one and use it, it's past the
point where it's strong enough to do any good.

If you need a content management system, you have a lot of data,
a lot of people accessing it, a lot of revisions, interdependencies,
etc.  And then you need more than what a CMS has to offer.
If you start on it before you need it, you might have a chance.
A lot of people (and myself only second hand) are of the opinion
that they basically aren't worth the bother.

I wonder if you could do something completely custom and minimal
and wind up with more flexibility and utility... work operations
tend to be strongly tied to the org chat.  If the org chat,
including work flow (who reports to who on what, including
ad hoc but long running relationships), and each person had
documents just throw out there (essentially ugo+r documents
in their file share), if a browser for those relationships wouldn't
would better.  If it's a call center, something else.  Or
manufacturing, something else again.

Oh well.  Just a thought.

Good luck.

-scott

On  0, "Douglas E. Miles" <perlguy at earthlink.net> wrote:
> All,
> 
> This is somewhat off topic.  Does anybody out there have any experience 
> with so-called Enterprise content management systems?  I'm talking about 
> systems from Interwoven, Vignette, Documentum, etc.  I'd like to hear 
> about any recommendations or good/bad experiences.  To make this more on 
> topic:  I'm especially interested to hear if Interwoven's TeamSite still 
> uses Perl.  The only information I can find is from 5-6 years ago.  If 
> it does, and it meets our other criteria, I'd certainly love to make a 
> case for it. :)  Thanks!
> _______________________________________________
> Phoenix-pm mailing list
> Phoenix-pm at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm

From friedman at highwire.stanford.edu  Thu Jan 31 14:21:54 2008
From: friedman at highwire.stanford.edu (Michael Friedman)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems
In-Reply-To: <20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net>
References: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net>
	<20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0801311414370.4376@hw-mfriedman.Stanford.EDU>

Back when I used to work with FileNet we competed against Documentum. Now 
I think they bought them, but that was many years ago.

Anyway, at that point, Documentum specialized in read-only documents. 
You'd put things into the system and then could easily change metadata 
about them, but not the documents themselves. Changing the documents 
themselves was a pain. I would hope they've moved on from there, but I 
admit I haven't looked recently.

However, building on Scott's point, you should do a serious requirements 
analysis before picking even the category of "large content management 
systems". It could be you only need something for web-based content or 
could use a wiki with a proper set of roles/authorization groups or 
something like Subversion. (Or, my favorite, Trac, which combines a wiki, 
web access to a SVN repository, and a request tracking system. It's 
written in Python, but for development groups it's way cool.)

If what you really need instead is workflow management, there are also 
other products out there for that market. Reviews and approvals, that sort 
of thing. Heck, PDF has those capabilities built-in these days.

Anyway, good luck! I'd like to know what you end up with, because I'm 
probably going to try again to get my company to get a better 
documentation repository within the next few months. (It's an annual 
thing. I keep losing, but I am persistent.)

-- Mike

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Scott Walters wrote:

> Hey Doug,
>
> I didn't have to work with any of these directly, but I worked
> with people who did, at Mot*rola.  My take on it is they're
> all like aspirin... by the time you really need them to the
> point where you'll go get one and use it, it's past the
> point where it's strong enough to do any good.
>
> If you need a content management system, you have a lot of data,
> a lot of people accessing it, a lot of revisions, interdependencies,
> etc.  And then you need more than what a CMS has to offer.
> If you start on it before you need it, you might have a chance.
> A lot of people (and myself only second hand) are of the opinion
> that they basically aren't worth the bother.
>
> I wonder if you could do something completely custom and minimal
> and wind up with more flexibility and utility... work operations
> tend to be strongly tied to the org chat.  If the org chat,
> including work flow (who reports to who on what, including
> ad hoc but long running relationships), and each person had
> documents just throw out there (essentially ugo+r documents
> in their file share), if a browser for those relationships wouldn't
> would better.  If it's a call center, something else.  Or
> manufacturing, something else again.
>
> Oh well.  Just a thought.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -scott
>
> On  0, "Douglas E. Miles" <perlguy at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> This is somewhat off topic.  Does anybody out there have any experience
>> with so-called Enterprise content management systems?  I'm talking about
>> systems from Interwoven, Vignette, Documentum, etc.  I'd like to hear
>> about any recommendations or good/bad experiences.  To make this more on
>> topic:  I'm especially interested to hear if Interwoven's TeamSite still
>> uses Perl.  The only information I can find is from 5-6 years ago.  If
>> it does, and it meets our other criteria, I'd certainly love to make a
>> case for it. :)  Thanks!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Phoenix-pm mailing list
>> Phoenix-pm at pm.org
>> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm
> _______________________________________________
> Phoenix-pm mailing list
> Phoenix-pm at pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Friedman                     HighWire Press
Phone: 650-725-1974                  Stanford University
FAX:   270-721-8034                  <friedman at highwire.stanford.edu>
---------------------------------------------------------------------


From perlguy at earthlink.net  Thu Jan 31 15:46:58 2008
From: perlguy at earthlink.net (Douglas E. Miles)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:46:58 -0700
Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems
In-Reply-To: <20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net>
References: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net>
	<20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net>
Message-ID: <47A25DF2.2070204@earthlink.net>

Thanks for the reply, Scott!  I'd love to do something custom, but I've 
already been shot down.  Part of the problem is that the current system 
we use was built in house in the late 90s.  Parts of it range from 
horrible to broken. :)  Parts of our company are also on an "anything 
but invented here" kick.  I think the best I can hope for in this 
process is to influence which ECM system we get.  If that. :)

Scott Walters wrote:
> Hey Doug,
>
> I didn't have to work with any of these directly, but I worked
> with people who did, at Mot*rola.  My take on it is they're
> all like aspirin... by the time you really need them to the
> point where you'll go get one and use it, it's past the
> point where it's strong enough to do any good.
>
> If you need a content management system, you have a lot of data,
> a lot of people accessing it, a lot of revisions, interdependencies,
> etc.  And then you need more than what a CMS has to offer.
> If you start on it before you need it, you might have a chance.
> A lot of people (and myself only second hand) are of the opinion
> that they basically aren't worth the bother.
>
> I wonder if you could do something completely custom and minimal
> and wind up with more flexibility and utility... work operations
> tend to be strongly tied to the org chat.  If the org chat,
> including work flow (who reports to who on what, including
> ad hoc but long running relationships), and each person had
> documents just throw out there (essentially ugo+r documents
> in their file share), if a browser for those relationships wouldn't
> would better.  If it's a call center, something else.  Or
> manufacturing, something else again.
>
> Oh well.  Just a thought.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -scott
>
> On  0, "Douglas E. Miles" <perlguy at earthlink.net> wrote:
>   
>> All,
>>
>> This is somewhat off topic.  Does anybody out there have any experience 
>> with so-called Enterprise content management systems?  I'm talking about 
>> systems from Interwoven, Vignette, Documentum, etc.  I'd like to hear 
>> about any recommendations or good/bad experiences.  To make this more on 
>> topic:  I'm especially interested to hear if Interwoven's TeamSite still 
>> uses Perl.  The only information I can find is from 5-6 years ago.  If 
>> it does, and it meets our other criteria, I'd certainly love to make a 
>> case for it. :)  Thanks!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Phoenix-pm mailing list
>> Phoenix-pm at pm.org
>> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm
>>     


From perlguy at earthlink.net  Thu Jan 31 15:49:55 2008
From: perlguy at earthlink.net (Douglas E. Miles)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:49:55 -0700
Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.64.0801311414370.4376@hw-mfriedman.Stanford.EDU>
References: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net>
	<20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net>
	<Pine.OSX.4.64.0801311414370.4376@hw-mfriedman.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <47A25EA3.60100@earthlink.net>

Hey Michael!  How's it going?  This will be used support and serve up 
our corporate website, so static content definitely won't cut it.  I'm 
still in the requirements/early evaluation stage here, but I thought I'd 
see if I can learn from the collective wisdom of the list. :)

Michael Friedman wrote:
> Back when I used to work with FileNet we competed against Documentum. 
> Now I think they bought them, but that was many years ago.
>
> Anyway, at that point, Documentum specialized in read-only documents. 
> You'd put things into the system and then could easily change metadata 
> about them, but not the documents themselves. Changing the documents 
> themselves was a pain. I would hope they've moved on from there, but I 
> admit I haven't looked recently.
>
> However, building on Scott's point, you should do a serious 
> requirements analysis before picking even the category of "large 
> content management systems". It could be you only need something for 
> web-based content or could use a wiki with a proper set of 
> roles/authorization groups or something like Subversion. (Or, my 
> favorite, Trac, which combines a wiki, web access to a SVN repository, 
> and a request tracking system. It's written in Python, but for 
> development groups it's way cool.)
>
> If what you really need instead is workflow management, there are also 
> other products out there for that market. Reviews and approvals, that 
> sort of thing. Heck, PDF has those capabilities built-in these days.
>
> Anyway, good luck! I'd like to know what you end up with, because I'm 
> probably going to try again to get my company to get a better 
> documentation repository within the next few months. (It's an annual 
> thing. I keep losing, but I am persistent.)
>
> -- Mike
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Scott Walters wrote:
>
>> Hey Doug,
>>
>> I didn't have to work with any of these directly, but I worked
>> with people who did, at Mot*rola.  My take on it is they're
>> all like aspirin... by the time you really need them to the
>> point where you'll go get one and use it, it's past the
>> point where it's strong enough to do any good.
>>
>> If you need a content management system, you have a lot of data,
>> a lot of people accessing it, a lot of revisions, interdependencies,
>> etc.  And then you need more than what a CMS has to offer.
>> If you start on it before you need it, you might have a chance.
>> A lot of people (and myself only second hand) are of the opinion
>> that they basically aren't worth the bother.
>>
>> I wonder if you could do something completely custom and minimal
>> and wind up with more flexibility and utility... work operations
>> tend to be strongly tied to the org chat.  If the org chat,
>> including work flow (who reports to who on what, including
>> ad hoc but long running relationships), and each person had
>> documents just throw out there (essentially ugo+r documents
>> in their file share), if a browser for those relationships wouldn't
>> would better.  If it's a call center, something else.  Or
>> manufacturing, something else again.
>>
>> Oh well.  Just a thought.
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> -scott
>>
>> On  0, "Douglas E. Miles" <perlguy at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This is somewhat off topic.  Does anybody out there have any experience
>>> with so-called Enterprise content management systems?  I'm talking 
>>> about
>>> systems from Interwoven, Vignette, Documentum, etc.  I'd like to hear
>>> about any recommendations or good/bad experiences.  To make this 
>>> more on
>>> topic:  I'm especially interested to hear if Interwoven's TeamSite 
>>> still
>>> uses Perl.  The only information I can find is from 5-6 years ago.  If
>>> it does, and it meets our other criteria, I'd certainly love to make a
>>> case for it. :)  Thanks!
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Phoenix-pm mailing list
>>> Phoenix-pm at pm.org
>>> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm
>> _______________________________________________
>> Phoenix-pm mailing list
>> Phoenix-pm at pm.org
>> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/phoenix-pm
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Friedman                     HighWire Press
> Phone: 650-725-1974                  Stanford University
> FAX:   270-721-8034                  <friedman at highwire.stanford.edu>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------


From perlguy at earthlink.net  Thu Jan 31 16:21:08 2008
From: perlguy at earthlink.net (Douglas E. Miles)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:21:08 -0700
Subject: [Phoenix-pm] OT - "Enterprise" content management systems
In-Reply-To: <47A25EA3.60100@earthlink.net>
References: <47A2071D.6030509@earthlink.net>	<20080131194044.GI6074@slowass.net>	<Pine.OSX.4.64.0801311414370.4376@hw-mfriedman.Stanford.EDU>
	<47A25EA3.60100@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <47A265F4.7090106@earthlink.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pm.org/pipermail/phoenix-pm/attachments/20080131/4db8f08f/attachment-0001.html