Sure, but you spent so much effort and time making the beautiful landing page and documentation, you might as well have a demo. I can't be the only person too "lazy" to download, and run it.
FWIW I second this, it looks beautiful, but setting up a site on my VPS takes work; even if it's 20 seconds to download and install, I have to set up configs, DNS, directories, etc. Would love to see a demo.
How about creating a docker container? http://docker.io
This would actually add the benefit of easy evaluation, while also helping us to jumpstart a project with cockpit.
It won't work with vagrant, it strips out the port number when doing redirects (uses them a lot it appears) so you always end up with failed redirects.
You should wrap it up in a docker container. All you need to do is create a Dockerfile in your repo and wire it up to http://hub.docker.com . That way the "try it out" steps are "docker run faulancer/cockpit-demo"
The docs are not readable on windows chrome, many people make this mistake it's uncanny, last week Google did this when they launched their new webdev tools.
FYI, I can't read the docs on mobile (iOS chrome). I click the menu and I see the list of topics, but clicking any one of them doesn't render its page. Maybe problem with my internet connection? Dunno but you might want to look into it.
I am working on something similar targeted at .NET platform. Definitely hate how bulky CMS's have become. I wouldn't call these CMSes either. I'd rather call them Content Management Platforms.
Keep going. Don't make it language dependent, keep it simple and lean with the ability to integrate with a static HTML site via JS or a Ruby site with a Gem or whatever else people want.
This was our thought too as we were building a knowledge base widget that works with existing websites by embedding and blending inline to the page's design. Others required you to set up another support site and match the design and we thought we could do it differently and save people time. You can learn more at http://userdeck.com/guides.
In your example dashboard screenshot, put some content in there rather than have them all empty. Make up a fake business or use an example from your own work elsewhere?
Hey guys, I created a fully functional demo of Cockpit in a terminal.com container. (I use nginx and php-fpm)
You may want to take a look on it at https://terminal.com/tiny/vaW1CCG13n
First you get your terminal.com account (they give you $10 of free credit) and them just start a new instance of that terminal. Once you get it running you will will see the admin panel in the embedded browser or just point yours to http://<yourterminalname>-80.terminal.com/cockpit/
This is kinda the direction i am going to, while creating sites for clients and a cms for them (iterating on it, every website). Your layout is much nicer though :P
PS. I also like the CMS's that use Blocks for creating a website, eg. what https://buildwithcraft.com/ is doing.
So, you're saying, Cockpit will have editable content blocks so the client can easily structure a page with different kinds of blocks? I might love you if that's it :)
I just wish someone would build a decent CMS on top of silex/symfony/laravel, rather than implement their own framework to drive their CMS, such as in this case (Lime?!).
I want all the extensibility of a fully tested framework but with some batteries included. Pagekit looks as though this could cover my needs.
Cockpit is about simplicity. I like it to be lightweight and with a minimum of overhead ... but I also understand you arguments. It's all a matter of taste :)
Even if there were an overhead, I'd rather have the stability of a fully tested framework than relying on an implementation with no tests.
What you have essentially done is created a framework, which in order for me to extend your CMS, I am going to have to learn. I also would lose the added benefit of not being able to use existing packages for (insert widely used fw here).
I can't really understand why you aren't using composer as well, it seems as though you are managing your own dependencies in the vendor/ folder?
Look, I have respect for you going out and creating your own cms. But I seem to get constantly disappointed when I dig into the nuts and bolts, and unfortunately this one is no different.
This is excellent. It's a good frontend for gathering content to deploy on static sites. Getting non-techies to write Markdown is still somewhat of a pain.
Thought the same, but it doesn't seem like it exposes a REST API for getting at the content during a build of a static site. Seems like it's just meant as the content management part of a dynamic PHP site.
Would be interesting to see an open-source alternative to content API's like Prismic or Contentful.
49 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadhttp://i.imgur.com/g9Ey8Fu.png
Site looks great though
You can try and load the svg version of the font first for chrome, you can do this via a chrome only media query, for example: https://gist.github.com/wycks/42e88a4a6e034863584c
If that doesn't work you can try a .htaccess rule. If that doesn't work you need to re-render your fonts.
Make sure to test in all browsers when you make a change because it might suddenly work in chrome then break in ie.
I am working on something similar targeted at .NET platform. Definitely hate how bulky CMS's have become. I wouldn't call these CMSes either. I'd rather call them Content Management Platforms.
http://cockpit-project.org
Or am I supposed to sign up...
edit - Do this after starting the snapshot:
chown www-data:www-data /var/run/php5-*
Was just a permissions issue.
PS. I also like the CMS's that use Blocks for creating a website, eg. what https://buildwithcraft.com/ is doing.
http://madebymany.github.io/sir-trevor-js/
I just wish someone would build a decent CMS on top of silex/symfony/laravel, rather than implement their own framework to drive their CMS, such as in this case (Lime?!).
I want all the extensibility of a fully tested framework but with some batteries included. Pagekit looks as though this could cover my needs.
Even if there were an overhead, I'd rather have the stability of a fully tested framework than relying on an implementation with no tests.
What you have essentially done is created a framework, which in order for me to extend your CMS, I am going to have to learn. I also would lose the added benefit of not being able to use existing packages for (insert widely used fw here).
I can't really understand why you aren't using composer as well, it seems as though you are managing your own dependencies in the vendor/ folder?
Look, I have respect for you going out and creating your own cms. But I seem to get constantly disappointed when I dig into the nuts and bolts, and unfortunately this one is no different.
Would be interesting to see an open-source alternative to content API's like Prismic or Contentful.