No Good Fix Goes Unpunished

This leads to an even more unnerving truth about open-source CMS platforms: installing these updates is not easy. It’s quite possible that your site will no longer work the way it once did (that’s what we call a minor bug). Perhaps you installed site modules called “extensions” that add interesting features to your site, like a user poll, a storefront, or a calendar. But after you install the maintenance release, they don’t work anymore, or they crash, or you get server errors.

Wait, I missed that. Could you repeat that?

After you install a security release, your site may not function as well as before. You thought the security release wouldn’t change anything that’s working, just fix the stuff you didn’t know about.

All of which begs the question: do you update your site to fix the security bug and lose partial functionality, or do you leave everything as before to preserve your site’s functionality hoping and praying that no one attacks your site? Dear Hamlet, this is not a time for indecision, but it may be a time for inaction. I don’t know the exact numbers, of course, but I do know anecdotally that many don’t bother with these maintenance fixes because they often seem to be more trouble than they are worth.

Why Does This Situation Exist?

In an earlier draft of this article I called CMS the ticking time bomb of the Internet because I felt that no one was really doing a proper job of educating the wider public about these flaws and how they might affect their site’s stability. My language seemed a tad sensational upon reflection. And let’s give credit where credit is due: Many coders dedicate endless hours fixing these flaws because they feel morally and financially obligated to protect their clients and constituents. I admire their dedication.

But at some point, any business owner needs to step back and assess what all this implies: are open-source CMS solutions truly the way to go? I’m not sure I understand why new flaws perpetually surface to replace the old ones, but since they do and they have it’s reasonable to predict they will keep on doing so.

A colleague of mine disdains open source: “Too many cooks in the kitchen,” he says shaking his head. Perhaps. Then again he likes Microsoft. Hey, what’s not to like?

The Adobe Solution

POP likes content management but feels that there is a safer solution available. We like Adobe and recommend their program Contribute. Contribute is a scaled down, more humane version of Dreamweaver, their flagship HTML editor. If you know how to use a word processor, you’ll pick up Contribute very quickly: securely load pages, edit or replace text, change images, add download links, and create new pages based on a template we’ve custom designed for you. It is far easier, more reliable, and safer without the hassle of platform upgrades. It also affords greater design freedom. We feel it’s better to use the tools made by the company that also makes such well-known applications as Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Flash, InDesign, and After Effects. And we feel comfortable recommending Adobe solutions to our clients because we’re confident they will be around in the future.

In fairness, Adobe releases patches to their programs as well. But the difference is that they never lead to painful quandaries about whether to upgrade or not because your site won’t be affected. No solution is inherently perfect, but we feel that a Contribute-based CMS is the most secure way to go.

Have you had a nightmare with a CMS? We’d love to hear about it. Send us all the gory details. Conversely, if you are a bona fide open source geek and you feel slighted, send me your rebuttal. I always welcome solid insight.

<< Back to previous page

• web design 
• |
•  logo design 
• |
•  video 
• |
•  packaging 
• |
•  collateral 
• |
•  advertising

• home 
• |
•  about pop 
• |
•  services 
• |
•  clients 
• |
•  contact 
• |
•  privacy 
• |
•  site map 
• |
•  articles