Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC.gov: A Modern Open Platform

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the oh-well-they-used-drupal-then dept.

Government 88

An anonymous reader writes "FCC.gov just launched a public beta which aims to take the agency into the future. The $1.35 million site follows the WhiteHouse.gov lead to Drupal. Agency director Steven Van Roekel spoke with O'Reilly about the agency's push for an open platform: 'It's not breakthrough stuff, but it's breakthrough for government.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shalsdot.org: A Modern Frost Posting Platform (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721894)

that's right, bitches, first post

Twice as fast! (1)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721906)

So now we can find out twice as fast that it costs $1 million to start a radio station!

...and BETA yet again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722034)

Woot, the FCC is following this retarded "beta" website fad. Started with Google, and now EVERYONE has caught on--news sites, vendors' hardware driver sites, forums, etc. Yes, our site is in a constant state of development, so let's misuse the beta term.
 
But at least some people do realize [stackoverflow.com] what [socio-kybernetics.net] has been going on.

Re:...and BETA yet again! (1)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722102)

Except that their legacy site is still at www.fcc.gov, and they are actively seeking feedback for the beta. Wait until the Drupal-backed site is moved from beta.fcc.gov to become the default; then we'll see if this is really a bandwagon they are on.

Re:...and BETA yet again! (1)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722332)

Great thoughts. I totally agree with you. The beta "fad" got REALLY old after everyone immediately jumped on the bandwagon.

My curiosity is how F/OSS is this *really* going to be? To this very day, if I want to apply for a license on the FCC's ULS/ELS (mainly the ELS), if I'm trying to pay by credit card or upload exhibit files, the site doesn't work with Firefox. When I go to pay, the site just sits there with an everlasting "please wait" screen. When I go to upload a PDF, I get a message that I was trying to send a file with an invalid format. Using IE, I don't have these problems, but it says nowhere on the page that you have to use IE! I believe that these are CFM forms, so the further they can get away from these, the better!

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722864)

I would like to see some replies to this. As a ham radio operator, I have had PLENTY of issues as well.

Re:...and BETA yet again! (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722564)

Woot, the FCC is following this retarded "beta" website fad. Started with Google, and now EVERYONE has caught on--news sites, vendors' hardware driver sites, forums, etc. Yes, our site is in a constant state of development, so let's misuse the beta term. But at least some people do realize [stackoverflow.com] what [socio-kybernetics.net] has been going on.

Dumbest complaint ever.

Re:...and BETA yet again! (1)

silverglade00 (1751552) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723516)

To be fair, that complaint is still in Beta...

::AcHTuNg!:: MOD PARENT *-*-DOWN-*-* ::AcHTuNg!:: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35724794)

Boy, are you retarded. Maybe they should commit you!

Why Drupal? (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721924)

There must be something compelling about Drupal, but I've found it really confusing and troublesome to work with as compared to, say, Wordpress. Why is it chosen for big projects like this?

Re:Why Drupal? (-1, Troll)

thebra (707939) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721964)

There must be something compelling about Drupal, but I've found it really confusing and troublesome to work with as compared to, say, Wordpress. Why is it chosen for big projects like this?

You just answered your own question. Our government is wasteful and inefficient.

Re:Why Drupal? (2)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35721992)

HEY NOW

Wordpress is great for some jobs, Drupal is perfect for most others.

Let them live together in peace, there is no reason to start an Open Source Content Management System war.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722016)

I am not just referring to Wordpress, however, and I find some other systems like Joomla equally disastrous. Yet plenty of smart people are choosing these systems every day. I'm not trying to start a war, I genuinely think I am missing something. What makes Drupal perfect for those other jobs?

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722054)

It is matter of learning on your part; you really need to rethink things (unlearn in some cases) when getting into a CMS

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722070)

Trying to answer my own question, I also found this interesting take: http://drupal.org/node/34421 [drupal.org]

Re:Why Drupal? (2)

rvw (755107) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722582)

I am not just referring to Wordpress, however, and I find some other systems like Joomla equally disastrous. Yet plenty of smart people are choosing these systems every day.

I'm not trying to start a war, I genuinely think I am missing something. What makes Drupal perfect for those other jobs?

Wordpress is great if it suits your needs. I use it a lot. When a friend asks to install a website, I'm prepared to install it, but only Wordpress. It's simple to learn for them, and this keeps it simple for me as well.

Drupal has several advantages. It has version control, so you look back at older versions, and you can even publish different versions at the same time. Another great feature is rights control. You can give sections or pages or elements of pages rights, and limit what users can see or do depending on their user role. For big websites, drupal is better suited.

At work we use it. We have one base installation, and hundreds of sites use that same base. Per site you can change what you like. I believe Wordpress is multisite as well, but I don't know exactly what it offers.

Re:Why Drupal? (2)

gnapster (1401889) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722122)

Yeah, an Open Source Content Management System war would be almost as absurd as people fighting over text editors, or something like that.

Re:Why Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722398)

Let them live together in peace, there is no reason to start an Open Source Content Management System war.

This nonsense must have been written by a Microsoft shill. What good is Open Source without a good flamewar between competing products. Just so you know, Wordpress was written with vi, and Drupal was written with emacs.

Unless you are advocating an alliance between WP and Drupal vs. Joomla. Then I take everything back. Everyone can agree to hate on Jooma.

Re:Why Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722134)

Maybe something to do with Four Kitchens and Obama's campaign sites.

Re:Why Drupal? (3, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722138)

It really depends on your needs.
http://www.cmsmatrix.org/matrix/cms-matrix [cmsmatrix.org] Will allow you to compare CMSs. Drupal is a much more complex and flexable system then Wordpress. That comes at a cost in simplicity. I think the key here is "big projects like this"

Strange list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35724104)

Quick, someone tell EMC and IBM that Documentum, eRoom, and FileNet aren't CMS.

Strange to exclude the two biggest players in the CMS space.
Though, I guess most of the things on the list are more keyed to web-publishing than content management.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722242)

Because with the ease and flexibility of Drupal, creating a website like this costs just 1.35 million dollars. What a bargain!

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722692)

And the only thing you can complain about is the cost, so they've done their job.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723984)

Since when is 1.35 million "a lot" of money for a development project, anyway? How big a staff does 1.35 million fund over six months? I'm guessing that'd cover 10-15 people making 75-100k/yr (factoring in benefits and the like) for a 6 month project, and that's if all of that money was strictly staffing costs, and didn't include service contracts for things like the move to a "cloud" hosting provider?

It doesn't seem that inordinately expensive to me, as development projects go.

My only real complaint so far would be that the fonts they're using look kind of ugly (weird jaggedy aliasing artifacts) in every browser I've looked at it in except IE.

Re:Why Drupal? (3, Informative)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722252)

Because Drupal can scale and fit into most development life cycles. There are thousands of modules available so you don't have to re-invent the wheel. Views [drupal.org] + CCK [drupal.org] is a relatively easy way to build sql queries through a simple UI. Developer tools abound; drush [drupal.org] , ctools [drupal.org] , integration with firebug, devel [drupal.org] , theme developer [drupal.org] , etc. Lots of APIs to hook into almost anything Drupal does (node API [drupal.org] , forms API [drupal.org] , etc), and quick integration with 3rd party systems through services [drupal.org] (XMLRPC, JSON, JSON-RPC, REST, SOAP, AMF, etc). Yes, it has a steep learning curve, but unlike Wordpress, Drupal is written for developers, not end users.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722360)

Drupal is written for developers, not end users.

I think this is the root of my problems with it. I had just wanted to install and use it, not use it as a basis for development.

Re:Why Drupal? (4, Informative)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722492)

You may want to checkout installation profiles [drupal.org] , this might be a good fit for you.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722524)

Nice, thanks!

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722508)

This. If you want to install a CMS, install a theme, and launch, go for WordPress.

Drupal is like: install, and then what ??@#!!.

That said, both Drupal and WordPress can be made (emphasis) to encompass the same functionality. Check out the following sister sites, made in Drupal and WordPress:

http://www.rue89.com/ [rue89.com]
http://www.quebec89.com/ [quebec89.com]

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723718)

"... unlike Wordpress, Drupal is written for developers, not end users."

Drupal is written for yesterday's developers, using yesterday's technology. PHP, for Grid's sake. It's not even really object-oriented. Well, it is, sort of. But that's a later add-on to the language, not something that was designed in from the start.

Yay, FCC! Taking us into "tomorrow" with yesterday's tools! At around ten times the cost of the same website done by somebody else.

Re:Why Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35724584)

Yes, because if something isn't object-oriented, it's not even worth thinking about, right?

Right?

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730644)

"Yes, because if something isn't object-oriented, it's not even worth thinking about, right?"

I suspect you were trying to get a rise out of me, but I will give a serious answer anyway.

People are already pushing to replace Object Orientation with some other paradigm. The most popular choice today seems to be Functional Programming, but I have my doubts unless you really need threading, right now. Functional Programming is just plain ugly. It works. It's powerful. But it's ugly. I am really hoping that somebody comes up with something better than Functional Programming, or at least a better language with which to do it.

My point is that even Object Orientation might be on its way out... if anybody comes up with something that is truly better, and they very well could tomorrow. Which goes to show that PHP is not just yesterday's technology, it actually belongs to day-before-yesterday.

PHP is the COBOL of the 21st Century. It hasn't been going away, but it probably should.

Re:Why Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35724898)

I suppose you think it should be using Ruby on Rails and MongoDB, right?

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35730560)

"I suppose you think it should be using Ruby on Rails and MongoDB, right?"

Probably not MongoDB. Maybe Ruby. Maybe Merb. Maybe Postgres. Hell, for all the information the government has actually seemed willing to give out, they might consider SQLite to be appropriate.

My point was that there are in fact newer -- and better -- technologies, and PHP ain't it. PHP is the COBOL of the 21st Century. It hasn't been going away, but it probably should.

Re:Why Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35728650)

"... unlike Wordpress, Drupal is written for developers, not end users."

Drupal is written for yesterday's developers, using yesterday's technology. PHP, for Grid's sake. It's not even really object-oriented. Well, it is, sort of. But that's a later add-on to the language, not something that was designed in from the start.

  Yay, FCC! Taking us into "tomorrow" with yesterday's tools! At around ten times the cost of the same website done by somebody else.

What would you have done instead?

Re:Why Drupal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35728254)

Drupal cannot and has never scaled. The entire Drupal pundit community keeps repeating this, but Drupal is about as optimized for scaling as my chair.

You see Drupal on very large sites because it is flexible. As for scaling, anything running across 23 web heads in multiple datacenters, hidden behind varnish and the usual suspects will "scale". Drupal itself does not, and especially now in D7 which is slow as hell. But again, throw 20-30K of infrastructure behind anything and you can make it go. Mind you I work in Drupal everyday, and love it, but lets be honest here and stop the marketing march already.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

tehpuppet (1065678) | more than 3 years ago | (#35724040)

It's the usual trade-off between simplicity and control. I have found Wordpress is great for smaller, simpler sites - especially something blog-based. Drupal is more complex from the start, but it gives you more control if you're trying to do something fancy.

To put it another way, there's a certain point of complexity where Wordpress becomes much harder to work with than Drupal.

Horses for courses.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

synthesizerpatel (1210598) | more than 3 years ago | (#35724928)

The real answer to this is - Drupal looks good from the outside and there are many, many Drupal consultants who will talk your ear off about how great Drupal is and be even happier to charge you 1.35m for a website.

The same people who love PHP and Drupal are the same folks who couldn't figure out how XML works so they instead opted to adopt schema-less JSON and whatever other made up flavor of the month solutions required less book-learnin' to implement. One need only look at the nested blob datastructures that Drupal add-ons inject into custom tables as a regular practice to 'get' the joke.

But god bless them. The only thing better than being paid 1.35m for a website is being paid 2m to fix it. Without Drupal, opportunities like that wouldn't be available to real software developers.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

forestgomp (526317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35727136)

Configuration management of a Drupal system is an absolute mess. I've yet to see a solid set of procedures for moving code and configuration forward (dev ---> test ---> staging ---> production) when the production database (with its convoluted schema) is continually altered due to content contributions. The features module (http://drupal.org/project/features) may be the best avenue in the future, but it is nowhere near a full solution.

On an unrelated note, apparently the developers of the new FCC site don't understand how to rid their site of persistent cookies. They may want to look at adding "ini_set('session.cookie_lifetime', 0);" to their settings.php file.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35729790)

(Obligatory disclosure: My business is providing technical services for advocacy organizations in DC. [jasonlefkowitz.net] My practice isn't Drupal-oriented, but obviously I have a financial interest in trends in that sector, so you may wish to discount my opinions accordingly.)

The answer is that it has critical mass in the advocacy/e-government sector. It isn't so much anything about Drupal per se that makes it the default choice; it's that in this line of business it's what everybody else uses. So you get lots of projects that start with the assumption that they're going to be using Drupal, without ever really evaluating how appropriate Drupal is versus competing alternatives. It's just What You Use. Partly this comes from having lots of tech people around who are familiar with it, so they reach for it first, and partly it comes from managers whose knowledge of Drupal begins and ends with having heard the name attached to other projects they're familiar with.

The result, of course, is that lots of projects end up trying to wrestle Drupal into strange configurations it was never meant to be in. You can kind of see that in this blog post from the Sunlight Foundation [sunlightlabs.com] , an open-government think tank. It's called "Content Management Systems just don't work," but the title is a bit misleading, because what it's really about is content management systems (a.k.a. Drupal) not working when pressed into service for tasks other than content management. Drupal's a fine CMS; the problem comes in when people try to make it act like a framework, or a database platform, or a RAD [wikipedia.org] tool, which it isn't.

The more interesting question isn't why people choose Drupal, it's how Drupal achieved critical mass in the DC technosphere in the first place. It's a long story, but the short version is that it goes back to the Howard Dean campaign in 2004. Dean was the first candidate to really raise serious money online, and his tech team had built lots of their tools on top of Drupal. (Here's an early example of Dean Drupal buzz. [wired.com] ) When the 2004 campaign was over, every political candidate wanted a bit of that Howard Dean Internet fundraising magic for himself, so there was a brisk demand for ex-Dean staffers to write articles and speak at conferences, explaining how they did what they had done. These staffers were naturally asked what tools they had used, they said "Drupal," and the result was hordes of magazine-readers and conference-goers coming away with the impression that Drupal was Internet Success In A Box. Which completely missed the point of the Deaniacs' message, but it led to more Drupal usage in advocacy & e-politics projects, which led to more visibility for Drupal, which led to more usage, which led to more visibility, and so forth.

Re:Why Drupal? (1)

DaVince21 (1342819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35744310)

I've tried using both, and Drupal seems to be structured much more to drop in modules and have it do whatever you want just alright, while WordPress is designed specifically to be a blogging system, thus it's extra good at doing that.

Nobody's stopping them from trying to use a combination of the two if they desire so, either. But I'm not sure how much they really need a blogging CMS.

Federal COMMUNISM Commission... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35721944)

A brand new site would have been a golden opportunity to lock themselves into some sort of proprietary solution developed by an incompetent but well connected contractor, complete with an endless upgrade treadmill of licensing fees and restrictions.

Instead, they go with Drupal. Why does the FCC hate business so much?

Re:Federal COMMUNISM Commission... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722198)

Because the goverment is run by a communist atheist nazi who isn't even a fucking american citizen, thats why! All the fucking NPR-listening, arugula eating, islamo-fascist LIE-BERALS are to blame for everything that is wrong with america.

VOTE REPUBLICAN AND SAVE AMERICA!

Re:Federal COMMUNISM Commission... (1)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722270)

Arugula? That's too elite sounding, you must be one of them!

Re:Federal COMMUNISM Commission... (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723790)

A proper 'merican would write that AR-u-GAY-la.

Re:Federal COMMUNISM Commission... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722488)

"Vote republican and save America"? That is an oxymoron if there ever was one!

Re:Federal COMMUNISM Commission... (4, Funny)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722820)

VOTE REPUBLICAN AND SAVE AMERICA!

That's a two-step plan. First, vote Republican. Then, save America from them.

Re:Federal COMMUNISM Commission... (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723088)

Don't you worry, I'm sure they'll still manage to spend somewhere north of $10 million on it.

What Dot Gov? +1, Helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722032)

.gov should read "Former U.S.A.".

Yours In Akademgorodok,
K. Trout.

Some Unusual Positive News (3, Insightful)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722080)

Ok, now who are you and what have you done with the FCC?! It certainly is unusual to hear of a government agency doing anything sane with technology, so kudos to the FCC! While Drupal has its detractors, it's a great platform if you know what you're doing. So I'm glad to see the FCC taking advantage of good OSS and thereby delivering a better product to the people at a lower overall cost. Sadly, the US government is not known for this sort of thing.

Re:Some Unusual Positive News (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723474)

So I'm glad to see the FCC taking advantage of good OSS and thereby delivering a better product to the people at a lower overall cost.

Maybe they didn't spend a big chunk on licensing fees, but $1.35 million for a fairly vanilla website is quite expensive.

... and that's why it will Epic Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722088)

'It's not breakthrough stuff, but it's breakthrough for government.'

There's vested interest to see it fail; all the current proprietary vendors will see to that. This is assuming everyone involved actually want this thing to work, and are not engaging in their own empire building. Sorry dudes (and dudettes) but this thing will go see cost overrun of epic proportion before finally been canceled.

Finally (2)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722152)

I hope many more government agencies being following redesign, their sites are hurtful even with my contacts out. When I went to the current fcc.gov page it was "wow..." the "beta" site looks at least current and willingly viewable. Certainly won't hurt their abandonment rate! And yes I get the whole "don't judge a site by it's css" which is cute and all, but bad usability is just laziness. And design is certainly part of usability.

Re:Finally (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722164)

And I forgot to format my response which doesn't make it very usable...

News? (2)

Clsid (564627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722202)

A government agency changes its website to the usual CMS/Jquery plugin with nice graphics interface that gets installed into most websites these days. How is this news?

I'd rather read about the efforts of the State Department, their website looks better imho, and they have pretty neat technology when it comes to visa applications. They have this image detection routine that will detect if you are wearing glasses, or if the picture has the wrong proportions based on the frame of your face and the frame of the image. They even have the barcode that you scan to get a mobile app. Wouldn't that be something worthy of this news site?

Re:News? (1)

jdoverholt (1229898) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722812)

It sounds like you've already read about the efforts of the State Department with their shiny website. Feel free to submit a write-up on it for everyone else's reading pleasure.

Re:News? (1)

Clsid (564627) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723246)

I just used the system when applying for a visa and thought it was pretty neat. I know the image detection works that way since I was doctoring images in the Gimp and just uploading it to the Test your Picture section to see how good it was. And it is really good :). It even detects when the borders of your face have been retouched. Try it out when you can.

Re:News? because its government (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723086)

This the FCC (YEA YEA boradcast flag, sell Verizon and ATT&T anything they want, he its not OTA but we can regulate ISPs because um...well we want too) we are talking about.

They actually did something supportive of open standards, and freedom for a change. I mean really its a shock that they new site is not being developed on Sharepoint! I almost spit my coffee out when when I read this! I mean they DID NOT PICK Sharepoint! Hope is alive!

I use drupal, and it's really good (2)

haeger (85819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722224)

However it does depend heavily on 3:rd party modules and not all of them actually clean up the DB after you install them. I have an old site, upgraded from Drupal 4.X-something, and while upgrade path has been rough at times, I've always managed to get it to work. However my DB is now a mess of unused tables that I'm not sure if I can delete.
I've tried the module "backup and migrate" to move the tables I "think" I need to another site, but unfortunatly I haven't managed to get it to work yet. It's either move the "whole mess" or it won't work.
A shame that it isn't easier, although D7 is a great step forward.

Re:I use drupal, and it's really good (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722554)

One of the biggest problems with Drupal is the need to install a whole bunch of modules to even get the basic functionality you would expect in a website. For example, in WordPress you get nice URLs (with the title as-words-in-the-url instead of just a document ID) out of the box. In Drupal, you install the path module, and then the pathauto module (to automatically create aliases at the time of article creation), not to mention dependencies.

Re:I use drupal, and it's really good (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722964)

It is because Drupal is module oriented, it has a very tight core built upon modules. One module to hadle users, one to handle paths, one to handlt translation of text string one to handle logs and so on. It is kind of like most *NIX systems where ls, sed, more, wget, ln, mkdir, grep and so on work together to form a coherent operating system. You need a programming language? Install a module. You need an audio encoder? Install it.

Granted, Drupal is developer-oriented, it is its weakness and strength. For end users who are understandably less willing to muck around with modules there are installation profiles [drupal.org] that works kind of like Linux distributions.

Re:I use drupal, and it's really good (1)

Wraithlyn (133796) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723570)

Well, if they included every potential feature in core, someone else would be writing right now: "One of the biggest problems with Drupal is that they shoved so much stuff in core it's really bloated."

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I for one prefer the leaner, more modular approach, as it allows me to decide exactly what goes in.

You're right that it certainly increases the learning curve though.

Re:I use drupal, and it's really good (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722710)

A system you can't break apart and repair is a system that's broken from the start.

Re:I use drupal, and it's really good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35723302)

^things a serial killer would say

Drupal again? (1)

euroq (1818100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722274)

Ahh, it's been a few days since a Slashdot story mentioned Drupal.

What IS it with Drupal and Slashdot? It's only used by ~1% of websites, AFAIK.

Re:Drupal again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722348)

Yeah, we should be discussing HTML and XHTML. I think they're used on 99% of websites.

Re:Drupal again? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722726)

What IS it with Drupal and Slashdot?

Apparently, /. editors love drag queens [wikipedia.org]

Re:Drupal again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35723130)

"Apparently, /. editors love drag queens [wikipedia.org]"

Love them or are them?

Re:Drupal again? (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723020)

It's only used by ~1% of websites, AFAIK.

In other words it has about the same market share as all flavors of Linux combined [wikipedia.org] (excluding Android), so we should probably be discussing this as often as various Linux flavors.

chosen.rulers.eugenatics.pr.gov, depopulationers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722384)

so, their 'platform' would need all the disguise of goodness that could possible be conjured? their os of choice is deletion of all code relevant to the truth about history, math, science, repeated extermination style holycosting etc... no badge of honor for them to usurp the code of the free, to be used to further their nefarious fatal agendas for all of us unchosen.

their own minions now disparage them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&NR=1

Drupal is like dealing with the DMV (1)

opencity (582224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722482)

I've done 2 (and a half) magazine sites writing fully custom CMS and am finishing a site with Drupal. Drupal can be pretty annoying but in the end you get caching for free which is a huge plus. Unlike Wordpress it's not for the "I just want to blog" crowd ("Born to Blog" might be a good t-shirt ...) and faced with another site that needs fully customizable pages, I'd only pick Drupal again if the budget was really low or if they were OK with it looking like Drupal's river of news. Next time out, Django.

how about manage spectrum... (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722646)

...by those who know what RF is. And not do something stupid like allocate broadband systems next to GPS spectrum.

using addthis.com? (1)

lems1 (163074) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722676)

Personally, I do not like the idea of .gov sites using addthis.com to add/manage content to their site. There are plenty of scenarios where this can be abused by third party sites (see addthis.com "partners" page).

FCC.gov's privacy page does not clearly mention this, nor does it provide links to opt-out from advertising networks (yes, I know, another cookie to opt you out, but something is better than nothing: http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp [networkadvertising.org]
(yes, I submitted this information to them as well)

It is a noble effort to modernize things. I just hope they approach this with caution.

What happened to reboot.fcc.gov? (1)

no_l0gic (136634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722682)

So this leaves me wondering what happened to the http://reboot.fcc.gov/ [fcc.gov] initiative announced back in January which was built using Liferay ( http://www.liferay.com/ [liferay.com] )

Only in America.. (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722796)

Leave it to the US Government to spend $1.35 million deploying a website on a free, open-source platform. Hey, Uncle Sam - I'll do the same quality site for the bargain price of $500,000.

Re:Only in America.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35722962)

Does that include all hardware, man hours for designers, testers, etc? What about back-end integration with dozens of existing apps, data conversion for the old site? Can you figure out layer upon layer of requirements that you have to decipher, CDN integration, section 508 compliance (do you even know what that is?). Oh, and you can't use persistent cookies (they're illegal), and so on. You also need to design an API that you can expose to the public. Don't forget a search engine as well, it should do faceted browsing and federate results between multiple sections. I can tell you've never converted a large site to another CMS or worked on a government contract. 1.35 million is a great price for what they got.

Re:Only in America.. (1)

LordStormes (1749242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723048)

I know I've designed sites that do everything you just described, albeit not for the government, and done so from scratch (no CMS). It took me about 4 months, as the lead along with 1 other coder, and including hardware, people time, testing, everything, cost less than $200K.

Re:Only in America.. (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723382)

You also probably didn't have to pay off multiple levels of bureaucracy and consultant insiders to make things happen. Don't you just love government efficiency?

Re:Only in America.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35724776)

A lot of the hoops you jump through in government contracting are to avoid corruption. In business it doesn't matter if you give the contract to build the website to your nephew, it's your ass on the line. In government there needs to be some checks because it's the taxpayer on the line. Unfortunately, it tends to snowball a bit out of control, but there are reasons. It's getting better though, it used to be to get some servers online in a datacenter took huge amounts of funding. Now you can go to the GSA catalog and grab a few for you agency with minimal hoops.

Re:Only in America.. (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723406)

I know I've designed sites that do everything you just described, albeit not for the government, and done so from scratch (no CMS). It took me about 4 months, as the lead along with 1 other coder, and including hardware, people time, testing, everything, cost less than $200K.

Sure, but does it have back-end integration to a S/360 mainframe? Hmmm??

Re:Only in America.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35724986)

Exactly, the fact that it was only 2 programmers tells me it wasn't even that large of a site. To replicate even the base functions of Drupal properly would take more than that.

Re:Only in America.. (2)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723122)

Not a penny of that was actually spent on the open-source platform. That was labor costs (project planning, custom coding, design, testing, and many many layers of management, auditing, and bureaucratic oversight), and I'm sure a very healthy chunk was spent in the data center costs (dedicated machines, load balancing, content delivery networks). Of course since it's a Federal project, the data center is also required to go through all those same layers of management, auditing, and bureaucratic oversight.

All things considered, $1.35 million is pretty damn cheap for something of this scope produced by and for the Federal government. I've seen small companies drop anywhere from $25k to $100k on custom Drupal sites, and the NYTimes paywall was $40 million.

Invalid code (1)

abloylas (857408) | more than 3 years ago | (#35722892)

Now thats funny (1)

sargon666777 (555498) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723284)

So let me get this straight... the FCC... basically the watchdog of the communication world... put its site on Terramark's cloud... which was purchased by..... wait for it..... Verizon... the very people they watch. http://www.mbtmag.com/Content.aspx?id=2346 [mbtmag.com]

I cry for my government -- Drupal SUCKS! (1)

unil_1005 (1790334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723466)

It is a very costly CMS.

It has a very steep learning curve, and is minimally documented.

And then it's slow.

waste of $ even when free

barf.

They spent too much... (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#35723750)

$1.35 million for this? Seriously? Building a custom Drupal template is trivial. It's not a bad-looking site, but it's basically a homepage design and a single template for all other pages. And navigating the site I'm not seeing a significant amount of content, in fact, a decent amount of it links off to other government sites. And there are some odd, inconsistent navigational elements here and there. I'm curious to know who was responsible for the content load, FCC employees or the developer.

Regardless, the cost is outrageous. In my experience, it's not difficult to find a good-sized corporation would balking at paying $50,000 for a site like this. I expect the US government to overspend, but I would have put the cost at $200k - $300k. Spending over $1 million on this is just idiotic.

It's actually java? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35725630)

curl -I data.fcc.gov

The article makes it sound like Drupal is this great thing that's providing all this new data transparency. It appears that that APIs are actually written in Java. Big D only powers the pretty face.

Fixed width (1)

spleck (312109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35734880)

Is modern supposed to imply a website designed to be 1024 pixels wide?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?