I love this concept, we could use more approachable static-file-cms solutions for non-technicals.
Without getting too far into a review/investigation, I do feel like a different name would be appropriate. It's already a language and a text-editor, doesn't that just add confusion?
Maybe this is deliberate, from "Picos [sic] makes creating and maintaining a website as simple as editing text files" but I don't think having the exact same name is a good thing. Maybe a variation?
Are there any example sites up? I have LAMP on my Windows box but meh - I don't know that I want to go through the steps to get Pico up and running until I see it in action.
There is clearly a niche for these small "CMS" tools, but let's be real about what these CMSes are generally not offering: User authentication, localization, custom field indexing, internal search...
Yes, it "manages content", thus is technically a "CMS". But at the level of many of these tools, so is my file system. At best, these tools are useful automated markdown renderers.
9 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 33.6 ms ] threadWithout getting too far into a review/investigation, I do feel like a different name would be appropriate. It's already a language and a text-editor, doesn't that just add confusion?
Maybe this is deliberate, from "Picos [sic] makes creating and maintaining a website as simple as editing text files" but I don't think having the exact same name is a good thing. Maybe a variation?
Yes, it "manages content", thus is technically a "CMS". But at the level of many of these tools, so is my file system. At best, these tools are useful automated markdown renderers.
I haven't tried with this system but you can probably use dropbox, and a shared directory to manage multi-user content editing.
I'm not invalidating your criticisms, but search, multi-user support, and localization aren't important to everybody.
Also the sentence "there are plenty of CMSes" is also possibly the most true statement ever made in the history of software.