Recent comments

 

View Ric Shreves's profile on LinkedIn

Add to Technorati Favorites
Visit News Now

Ric on Twitter

  • 30 August, 2010 - 00:11
    The Activity Feed module for #drupal rocks!
  • 28 August, 2010 - 14:43
    Artichoke tapenade, kalamata garlic olives, locally brewed India Pale Ale. A good Saturday!
  • 28 August, 2010 - 12:12
    Beautiful blue skies in Bali -- added bonus: peak season coming to an end, allowing us some relief from tourist overload.
  • 27 August, 2010 - 22:52
    RT @socialasia: This will put a little price pressure on the social media monitoring market! Google Realtime: http://ht.ly/2vKuy
  • 27 August, 2010 - 22:48
    @ron_miller I share your skepticism on this one.

white paper

Have you seen the

2009 Open Source CMS Market Share Survey?

 

 

 

The Top 20: Open Source Content Management Systems

Before we could begin the research for the 2009 Open Source CMS Market Share Report, we first had to define the list of systems we considered to be contenders for the crown. Last year's report featured nineteen systems. (This year we plan to do things a bit differently, though you'll have to wait for the report itself to find out what exactly!) We started our internal discussions with the list of nineteen systems from last year, to which we added the significant number of suggestions from readers of the report.

Without giving away too much too soon, I wanted to share our final list of the Top 20 Open Source Web Content Management Systems. We list them here for you in alphabetical order, along with links to the project sites.

The Methodology

What was the criteria for inclusion on The List of Twenty? First, we are only concerned with web content management systems, aka WCM. Second, the system has to be available under an open source license, though dual-licensed products are eligible for consideration. Finally, to be eligible, the project must have released a new version of the software since the last report (July 2008).

The final List of Twenty is based on a simple criteria, that is, a direct comparison of the following three metrics, gleaned from five different sources:

  1. Search volume, according to Google and Wordtracker
  2. Traffic for the primary project site, according to Alexa and Compete
  3. Social bookmarking prominence, as gauged by Delicious saves

While this methodology may be open to debate, for purposes of creating a "short list" of the most popular and prominent systems, I think it serves pretty well.

The List of Twenty (in alphabetical order)

system project site
Alfresco http://alfresco.com
CMSMadeSimple http://www.cmsmadesimple.org
Concrete5 http://www.concrete5.org/
DotNetNuke http://www.dotnetnuke.com/
Drupal http://www.drupal.org
e107 http://e107.org
Elgg http://elgg.org
eZ Publish http://ez.no
Joomla! http://www.joomla.org
Liferay http://www.liferay.com
MODx http://modxcms.com
OpenCMS http://www.opencms.org
phpWebSite http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu
Pligg http://www.pligg.com
Plone http://plone.org
Silverstripe http://www.silverstripe.org
TikiWiki CMS+Groupware http://tikiwiki.org
Typo3 http://typo3.com
WordPress http://wordpress.org/
Xoops http://www.xoops.org

The list raises a number of interesting questions, among them, how did these projects come about and how are they sustained? For a project to rise to this level of prominence, it has to have achieved a high level of stability, innovation and reliability. In the open source world, how did that occur? Perhaps not surprisingly, there is no one dominant answer; these systems are the product of multiple approaches to the challenge of open source project governance.

The organizational structure of the List of Twenty breaks down as follows:

Community-Driven Projects (total = 6)

The community-driven projects represent what we can call "pure" open source, in the sense that these projects are not backed by corporate or commercial interests. These systems are the result of the collaborative efforts of a group of loosely-associated individuals. These projects offer only one version of the software, under a straight open source license.

system
CMSMadeSimple
Concrete5
e107
MODx
phpWebSite
Xoops

Foundation-Backed Projects (total = 5)

The Foundation-backed open source projects represent the next step in the evolution of "pure" open source. These projects tend to be larger and more established than the traditional community projects and as such benefit from having the backing of a properly organized corporate entity, albeit a non-profit (or in the case of some of the groups, a not-for-profit) corporation. The foundation structure means that the IP and other assets are held by the corporation rather than by any individuals. Like community-driven projects, these projects offer only one version of the system, under a straight open source license.

system foundation
Drupal The Drupal Association
Joomla! Open Source Matters, Inc.
Plone The Plone Foundation
Typo3 Typo3 Association
TikiWiki Tiki Software Community Association

Corporate-Backed Projects (total = 9)

Corporate-backed projects are open source, but with the backing of a single corporate entity with commercial interests. Most (but not all) of these projects offer more than one version of the system; typically one version free of charge under a straight open source license, and another version sold for a fee under more restricted licensing terms. Of the systems on this list that do not offer a dual licensing business model, the corporate partner looks to support, add-ons, training, or custom development for revenue.

system corporate backer
Alfresco Alfresco Software, Inc.
DotNetNuke DotNetNuke Corp.
Elgg Curverider
eZ Publish eZ Systems AS
Liferay Liferay, Inc.
OpenCMS Alkacon Software GmbH
Pligg Pligg LLC.
Silverstripe Silverstripe Ltd.
WordPress Automattic, Inc.

 

Comments

Some adjustments about TikiWiki CMS/Groupware

Hi Ric!

Interesting indeed to split by type of project/community.

Please use the full name for our project: TikiWiki CMS/Groupware
http://info.tikiwiki.org/Fact+Sheet
It's very important that people know that Tiki is so much more than a wiki :-)

Also, please move us in the "Foundation-Backed Projects" category.
http://tikiwiki.org/Tiki+Software+Community+Association

Please do contact me for any questions/stats/facts/etc about the project.

Best regards,

M ;-)

TikiWiki Info updates

Marc,

Thank you very much for writing about this. I've updated the info in the article and will also include it in the report.

best,
ric

Some adjustments about TikiWiki CMS/Groupware

Hi Ric!

These precisions (project name, association) didn't make it to the final report.

What is the normal procedure for us to report incorrect facts in the 2009 report?

For example, downloads are reported as 373 (Average weekly downloads). Here is data from SourceForge:
http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=64258&ugn=tikiw...

Sep 2009 8,224
Aug 2009 7,094
Jul 2009 8,828
Jun 2009 6,848
May 2009 7,404
Apr 2009 6,929
Mar 2009 8,320

Best regards,

M ;-)

Marc Laporte
TikiWiki CMS/Groupware

core downloads?

Marc,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the numbers on that link for ALL files? I'm only hashing the average core file downloads, so my selection set is narrower. Please check it out and let me know if I am off base here.

And thanks for posting!

best,
ric

In TikiWiki CMS/Groupware, "everything" is in the core!

Hi Ric!

Yes, they are for all downloads.

I thinks it's very wise that you are preoccupied about core vs extension downloads. In fact, having an application where functionality availability (download/support/documentation,etc) is very distributed, can increase statistics for downloads and plenty of other indicators.

TikiWiki CMS/Groupware has a different model than most projects. No, really! :-) Instead of a small core, and hundreds or thousands of extensions, pretty much all the possible functionality is available in a single download. Your choices are the version (2.4, 3.2, etc.) and if you prefer .zip, .bz2, etc. All (35+) languages and 6 themes are bundled.

All features are optional and you pick & choose what to activate. There also are "profiles" to help you get started. We feel this model has many benefits (avoid dependency hell, avoid feature duplication, inherent synchronized releases, etc.). The Tiki model is explained at http://tikiwiki.org/Model

The exceptions to what is in the core are called "Mods". This is for code that for some reason was not added to core. Ex.: licensing issue, too specific, too experimental, deprecated, etc.
http://mods.tikiwiki.org/

It is also used to distribute themes. Mods, expect for themes, are somewhat marginal. In any case, mods are not downloaded via SourceForge.net so they don't affect the stats.

Here are all files available for download:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/tikiwiki/files/

The "tiki add-ons" section contains very old things (2002-2005). I will remove this from SourceForge.net as it's old unsupported stuff.

There is also a tiki documentation section. The documentation is maintained, wiki-way on doc.tikiwiki.org but we make a snapshot in PDF every once in a while. I think we'll be doing this less & less because the last one for Tiki 1.9.x was nearly 1000 printable pages (!). And people tend to prefer to get the doc from the source and print out a few pages as needed. In any case, this section will remain.

Here are monthly stats for Tiki 3.1 (.zip file only)

Sep 2009 3,501
Aug 2009 2,758
Jul 2009 3,791

Source:
https://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=64258&ugn=tiki...

But then, there is also (.tar.gz)
Sep 2009 452
Aug 2009 699
Jul 2009 1,255

Source:
http://sourceforge.net/project/stats/detail.php?group_id=64258&ugn=tikiw...

And some people are still downloading older versions (3.0, 2.4, etc)

So the easiest way to have the most accurate count would be to take the current total and to subtract the figures for tiki-documentation and the old tiki add-ons. Considering these two folders have fairly old stuff, maybe it'll reduce the overall download count by 5-15%?

And this, as you have aptly pointed out in the report, doesn't include Fantastico installs. Since Fantastico also handles upgrades, this is a very compelling option. I wouldn't be surprised that Fantastico installs would be much higher than the number of downloads.

Best regards,

M ;-)

Marc Laporte
TikiWiki CMS/Groupware

good info -- thanks for that

Marc,

Thanks again for writing and helping us pin this down. This is good info and will certainly help us refine our numbers.

On another point -- I trialed TikiWiki for a client a while back. It was for an Intranet job. They eventually abandoned the whole project, but it was interesting for me as I'd never spent that much time with your project. I have to say, I thought there was a lot there. Seems to me the project has a lot of potential. I hope you guys are able to keep refining things and make it more competitive. I personally believe a lot of people under-estimate you guys.

best,
ric

Syndicate content