[vcryan]

I think this pitch overstates the problem with CMSes. It seems for many organizations, their CMS is working well for them. Not saying this doesn't have benefit, but, as for me, I rather like my CMS and don't feel like this is a big win.

[input_sh]

> It seems for many organizations, their CMS is working well for them.

I hope to work in one of such orgs some day because the most common experience I've witnessed was pain.

And things don't improve when you throw more money at a CMS. There's an entire industry of enterprise CMSs (yearly license in five figures) and their users aren't any happier with their CMS than WordPress users.

[_mql]

I'm coming from a minimalist perspective. Of course a hand-crafted site like this template doesn't cover all the enterprise CMS use cases, such as image manipulation, video transcoding etc. It's not a one-size-fits-it-all solution but for for me personally, it speeds up things and gives me 100% control. I'm the person who'd rather invest in developing a FFMPEG API endpoint tailored for my application than pulling in the complexity of a CMS.

[naet]

This is a huge step down from the experience of many CMSes. Controls are limited and don't really work for building a page. Maybe convenient for very small text edits like spelling fixes but not at all a replacement for a more in depth editing experience.

[danjac]

A full-featured CMS includes editing workflow I think: so an intern writing a press release has to have the article checked by an editor and maybe the legal department before publication, with corrections or comments included. At a pinch you could use Google Docs but that comes with more friction - hard to preview the content on the site etc and it's not so easily enforced as a locked-down CMS workflow.