Comments on: Comparing Umbraco and DotNetNuke

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:35:38 +0000

DNN is great if you want 1996 style HTML markup and an antiquated portal module. If you’re actually capable of doing a modicum of decent .NET development you should be using Umbraco. Don’t take my word for it though, install it yourself, kick the tires, it will become apparent pretty quickly that DNN is a “past-its-prime” dinosaur who couldn’t keep up with the times and has to rely on an army of shills to post glowing misleading comments about it on random blogs.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:05:58 +0000

Wow. I just don’t understand all the love for Umbraco. I have just spent 2 days playing with both for the first time and it isn’t even close in my opinion which one is better.

The biggest advantages to DNN (using the current versions of both as of 3/1/2011) are:

1) DNN is much easier install, IMO… Umbraco’s separate dependency installs failed multiple times for me.

2) No client side applications needed. This makes it WAAAY easier to split up development across resources. All you ever need is a browser with DNN.

3) General bugginess with Umbraco. I’ll I heard was how great it was supposed to be and I’m sorry, it’s NOT. It crashed on me several times… and what’s with not being able to hit the enter key as a “submit” when you are logging in? Javascript errors crashed my browser whenever I tried that.

4) Skinning (which is very important for my needs) in DNN couldn’t have been simpler for a Visual Studio .Net developer such as myself. I had a fully replicated .net masterpage converted to a DNN theme in about 1 hour. I couldn’t get anywhere with Umbraco.

Thanks for reading, I promise you I am just not some random DNN troll either… I just had to get these thoughts off my chest after using both for the first time in the past week.

By: Ib "Umbraco" Hansen

Ib "Umbraco" Hansen — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:57:24 +0000

Must say im very focused on Umbraco development, and has for the last few months. Im quite happy with the system compared to other .NET environments I have worked with.

Hoping to get http://www.novicell.dk/produkter/cms/umbraco/ to run on Umbraco one of these days instead of an Inhouse CMS system.

By: Ravi Gupta

Ravi Gupta — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 07:05:42 +0000

I feel Umbraco is more developer friendly while DNN is more user friendly.

By: Anton Burtsev

Anton Burtsev — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:39:53 +0000

DotNetNuke is an excellent development platform. And there are many tools that provide rapid web-based development for the DotNetNuke. XsltDb module is one of them. XsltDb is an XSLT based development environment and also provides database access and ASP.NET controls usage. Moreover, it offers a syntax highlighting and code completion. It is and opensource product, you can find it as http://xsltdb.codeplex.com

By: Asperto

Asperto — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:42:16 +0000

This discussion is beginning to smack of the predjudice that infected OS and browser-wars. So I’ll stay as positive as possible.
However:
I have more respect for contributors who have a competency in English punctuation.
The Umbraco intro’ has the statement “What is Umbraco” (no question mark. I believe the punctuation marks are indispensible for clear English comprehension.)
I also respect a company more if they have a bona fide website address. (www.umbraco.com has been stolen by url hi-jackers. So much for ‘friendliness’ in the community…).
On the other hand, DNN does it for me, and has done since 2004.
It is solid and professional. There are thousands of 3rd-party apps. Anything you don’t get out of the box, you can buy reasonably cheaply, (or using C# or VB.NET) can build.
Right now, I’m working on multi-touch silverlight apps.
(So any debate about server round-trips is a bit old now).
I suspect that from what I’ve seen so far Umbraco needs more hosting horsepower and requires higher skill-levels to build a site. It therefore appeals to developers who see more work.
Umbraco looks to me like it’s quite convenient for page CMS, whereas DNN looks like it handles containers on pages better.
Whatever you do, please let’s compare current versions. DNN is currently on 5.4.2. It has excellent version control at article level and page level. If you want a publishing system/ Shop/ helpdesk etc, etc, you can buy an installable module very reasonably.
DNN is a multi-portal system. A webmaster can sell a system or sub-portal automatically to a user organisation’s webmaster. The site template builds and bills the user webmaster automatically.
Umbraco is promising MVC (But that’s a complete re-write! Fundamentally different and it is no where near ready so let’s not count that as an asset yet).
Asperto

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 05:42:59 +0000

Hard to compare DNN to Umbraco, DNN is antiquated garbage that spits out garbage, Umbraco is modern, clean, streamlined, though not without it’s faults.

Our company uses DNN on their large websites, it’s an endless list of problems.DNN really makes web development a nightmare compared to Umbraco. It’s such a pity we have to work with it. Guess that’s what happens when marketing makes the decisions.

By: Comparing Umbraco and DotNetNuke | DNN Blog

Comparing Umbraco and DotNetNuke | DNN Blog — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:01:03 +0000

[...] Comparing Umbraco and DotNetNuke [...]

By: Kooboo

Kooboo — Sun, 04 Apr 2010 16:27:18 +0000

I am hoping that someone can do a review about kooboo as well.

1. Probably the first which can support publishing from MS word.

2. Built based on ASP.NET MVC, easier to extend.

3. Install easily and works fine on share hosting.

By: emilio

emilio — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:57:05 +0000

can some run under apache/mono/linux ?
i think it´s very important point of view.
database system is very important too.