
	------------------------------
	------------------------------
	ph	(p)
	a	(daptable)
	b	(bulletin board based)
	C	(ontent)
	M	(anagement)
	S	(ystem)
	------------------------------
	------------------------------

Yes, I know it's a bit silly. That's the whole point :p


This is the README I wrote to focus my ideas, it's obviously only a draft, and 
it's even outdated since I wrote _ages_ ago, before beginning the coding proper.
It explains the purpose behind the CMS though, so perhaps it's of some meagre 
use.

The Basic Idea
--------------
	I wanted an easily adaptable user-based website that would be flexible
	enough to do everything I wanted without having the extra problems of
	being hard to use, or configure, or anything :) At the heart of this is 
	the post system, which is used both for news and forum entries, and the 
	user/group system.


Why not use an existing system like PHP-Nuke?
---------------------------------------------
	A fair question, I don't like the limitations of the format and although
	it's moddable to drastically change that format, it's still quite
	annoying (imho). My system uses a nice basic template idea that even I
	can understand. The innevitable followup question is "Why should I use
	your system instead of Nuke?" and my only answer to that is that my
	system certainly has less features, and isn't supported by anyone but
	me. If you're just looking for a quick website solution then Nuke may be
	better (v6 looks rather sexy). Why aren't you using PHP-Nuke already? :P	
	In fact the only reason I can think that you'd use mine over PHP-Nuke is	
	that you can code snippets, but can't be bothered coding a whole site.


Why did you write phabCMS?
---------------------------
	Because I'm lazy and can't stand the idea of having to move all my posts
	and whatnot into a new format, or having to spend any length of time
	redesigning the basic look of the site. Fundementally this system should
	be easy enough to create a vast array of templates in a short amount of
	time and have them all work and available to the user.

	Another reason is because I really don't like using other people's code
	- I'm obtuse and obviously if it's written by me, I can mod it to my
	heart's content with a rather good idea of where things are going wrong
	if that should ever happen.


What's good about phabCMS?
---------------------------
	* It's quite simple to get it up and running VERY quickly, but then so
	  is Nuke if you know what you're doing or are able to folllow the
	  instructions with some degree of intelligence.

	* It's easy to make dependant modules, and the provided functions are
	  sufficiently documented.

	* It's easy to make independent modules without needing to care what my
	  system is doing to output them.

	* My favourite part of it is that I can create a draft html version of
	  what I want the site to look like, and within 2 minutes I can change
	  that draft into a fully usable template. I find that with other CMSs I
	  end up designing my look around what they think a site should be.
	  Perhaps I'm just doing something wrong :)

	* I'm quite willing to attend to bugs as my commitments allow, so bugs
	  ought to be corrected quite quickly if you email them to me.


What's crap about phabCMS?
---------------------------
	* Every single line of code was written by me, a relative beginner. As
	  such I can't vouch for it's complete security though I tried to keep
	  "SECURITY" at the forefront of my mind while writing it. I have no
	  doubt however that it has it's weaknesses, but refer to the last point
	  above.

	* It's got no inbuilt advert support, and will never be distributed with
	  such functions. I have no illusions about the inherent hypocrisy in
	  claiming that I'm anti-capitalist while living in the west and
	  enjoying the fruits of capitalism, gleaned from the harder work of
	  other less fortunate nations. However. Adverts annoy me.

	* It was created by me, for me, with me in mind. So perhaps it's really
	  not as flexible as I would like to think;
					      perception...reality...difference?

	* The user group system is slightly weird. But nothing too strenuous.

	* It has no support for PostgreSQL; I have no experience with using it,
	  I'm afraid.

	* It won't work on any version of PHP below 4.1; this isn't such a bad
	  thing as positive changes have been made to the security of the
	  distribution. Besides, if your host is any good then they'll have the
	  latest version of the PHP module for Apache or IIS, won't they? :P


Why's the "crap" bit bigger than the "good" bit?
------------------------------------------------
	I'm quite self critical and hopefully aware of the problems encountered
	when using someone else's work, especially when that someone (me) isn't
	that experienced. Also... Oh just piss off and download Nuke.


Other (better) free PHP CMSs:
-----------------------------
	PHP-Nuke	-	http://www.phpnuke.com/
			-	The standard in CMS on the web

	eZ publish	-	http://developer.ez.no/
			-	A newer system, apparently more versatile

	GeekLog		-	http://geeklog.sourceforge.net/
			-	Good CMS, seems quite unknown :\\

	PHP Web Site	-	http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu/
			-	This reminds me of old versions of Nuke

	http://www.hotscripts.com/PHP/Scripts_and_Programs/Portal_Systems/