选择 CMS：EPiServer、Orchard、SiteCore、Umbraco
我越来越注意到正在使用的内容管理系统的数量。我对 SiteCore 有一定的了解。我读过一些关于 Umbraco 的文献。前几天我才听到果园的风声。我只听到有关 EPiServer 的积极反馈。我很快就会担任使用它的角色。
这些产品在功能和价格方面差异很大吗？是什么促使您选择其中一个（或多个）而不是其他？
编辑
我在这里对所谓的免费 CMS 进行了简要回顾：关于免费的 Microsoft 兼容内容管理系统
我在开发 50k 页面网站时放弃 Orchard 的原因：
Orchard CMS 导入工具实在是太慢了。它只会接受 一次小批量。最初，导入需要八分钟 1000 条记录。因此，根据这一原则，我预计它可以 导入所有记录需要七个小时。不幸的是，我开始 随着更多记录插入到中，接收性能问题 数据库。我什至开始减少批量大小，这只会有帮助 暂时处于早期阶段。 （参见 对 Orchard 说不< /a>)
Increasingly, I have noticed the number of Content Management Systems in use. I have some familiarity with SiteCore. I have read some literature on Umbraco. I only just got wind of Orchard the other day. I have only heard positive feedback about EPiServer. I am soon to move into a role that uses it.
Do these differ vastly in features and price? What has led you to choose one (or several) over the others?
EDIT
I did a brief review of so-called free CMSs here: On Free Microsoft Compatible Content Management Systems
Reasons I ditched Orchard when developing a 50k page website:
The Orchard CMS import tool is simply too slow. It would only accept
small batches at a time. Initially, it took eight minutes to import
1000 records. So, working on that principle I expected that it could
take seven hours to import all the records. Unfortunately, I started
to receive performance issues as more records were inserted into the
database. I even started to reduce the batch size, which helped only
temporarily in the early stages. (See Saying no to Orchard)
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（5）
我只能主要对 Sitecore 进行评论，并根据我对使用它的其他人的了解对 Umbraco 进行一些评论：
Sitecore 是一个具有“企业价格标签”的企业级 Web CMS。它具有很强的可扩展性，拥有大量开发人员/社区支持，并且对开发人员非常友好。内容结构基于具有父子关系的节点树。 Sitecore 在 WCM 社区中作为内容管理领域的领导者而闻名，并受到 Forrester Research 等公司的高度评价。
根据我之前的研究和与朋友的对话，Umbraco 与网站核心。与 Sitecore 相比，它的价格较低，但并非完全抄袭。 Umbraco 也像 Sitecore 一样构建在 ASP.NET 上。
这是由开发人员撰写的有关 Sitecore 与 Umbraco 的三部分系列文章。
I can only comment mainly on Sitecore and a bit on Umbraco from my knowledge of others using it:
Sitecore is an enterprise level web CMS with an "enterprise price tag." It's very extensible, has a lot of developer/community support, and is very developer friendly. The structure of content is based on a tree of nodes with parent-children relationships. Sitecore is well known in the WCM community as a leader in content management and is rated very well by companies sch as Forrester Research, etc.
Based on my previous research and conversations with friends, Umbraco is very similar to Sitecore. It has a lower price compared to Sitecore but its not a complete rip off. Umbraco is also built on ASP.NET like Sitecore.
Here's a three-part series on Sitecore vs. Umbraco from a developer.
在您上面提到的那些中，我只使用过 Umbraco 和 Sitecore 进行构建，并且都获得了认证。我喜欢他们让我构建真正适合我的客户的系统的方式。它们都给人一种感觉，它们只是为您提供了创建杰作的构建块，而不是插入的功能“模块”，为您提供博客、论坛等。它们使在整个网站上共享内容变得非常容易，并创造出非常好的内容管理经验。
Umbraco 的社区真的很棒。在我看来，他们在文档方面都有点困难，但 Umbraco 的视频确实很有帮助，而且社区很快就能提供帮助。另外，如果您谈论的是成本，那么它是免费的（Umbraco），而相对昂贵的（Sitecore）。
但现实情况是，每个开发人员都有自己的品味和他们喜欢使用的 CMS 风格。最终，当涉及到每个 CMS 对最终用户的执行效果时，真正最重要的是构建网站的团队。
除了上面的链接之外，这里还有几篇博客文章可以帮助您了解不同的系统：
果园和Umbraco - 简介（第 1 部分，共 4 部分）- Aaron Powell
Sitecore 与 Umbraco 术语
祝你好运！
Of the ones you mention above, I have only used Umbraco and Sitecore to build with and am certified in both. I like the way they allow me to build systems that really work well for my customers. They both have a feel that they simply give you building blocks to create your masterpiece instead of "modules" of functionality plugged in that give you a blog, forum, etc. They make it really easy to share content throughout the site and create really nice admin experiences.
Umbraco's community is really great. They both struggle a little on the documentation side IMO, but Umbraco's videos really help and the community is quick to help. Also, if you're talking cost then its free (Umbraco) vs. quite expensive (Sitecore).
But the reality is that each developer has their own taste and the style of CMS they like to work with. Ultimately, its the team that has to build the site that really matters most when it comes to how each CMS performs for the end user.
In addition to the links above, here are a couple blog posts that may help you get a feel for the different systems:
Orchard & Umbraco - Introduction (part 1 of 4) - Aaron Powell
Sitecore vs. Umbraco Terminology
Good luck!
我主要使用 EPiServer 和 Sitecore，我可以简单地告诉您两者的区别：
Sitecore 具有更广泛的架构和更强大的 UI。 CMS具有深度可配置性和高度可扩展性，它具有巧妙的发布和缓存系统、强大的搜索和页面编辑器。但它并没有提供太多开箱即用的功能，而且 UI 相当陈旧、缓慢且难以学习。因此，这将是一个漫长的旅程，直到您充分理解它并为编辑者提供良好的支持。
EPiServer对于用户和开发人员来说简单、友好。它提供了一系列开箱即用的基本功能，具有简单的用户界面和页面编辑器、良好的拖放体验、轻松的个性化。它是代码优先的，与 NuGet 一起分发，为其服务提供依赖项注入，开箱即用的 MVC 支持。但它的可扩展性和可配置性较差，具有纯搜索（没有昂贵的 EPiFind 模块），并且与 Sitecore 相比，其功能通常较低。因此，它对中小型网站很有好处，但在复杂的解决方案中可能会成为障碍。
两者都有相似的树项概念、丰富的文档、纯粹的公共模块系统和硬UI定制。既昂贵又不开源。
据我所知，Umbraco 与 EPiServer 和 Sitecore 非常相似，但免费且开源。当然，你会得到更少的功能，更多的错误，没有太多的文档，也没有免费的支持。
Orchard 与其他三个 CMS 相比确实不同。它像 WordPress 一样是基于模块的：您使用标准或公共模块和主题，而不是从头开始编写整个网站。您可以创建自己的主题和模块来自定义网站和 CMS。所以整个CMS具有很强的可扩展性，并且提供了很多免费的社区模块。但同时你会失去控制，学习曲线也会更长。 Orchard 是免费和开源的，完全基于 MVC，UI 和 API 做得很好，但开发人员和编辑人员都很难理解它。
I mostly work with EPiServer and Sitecore, and I can tell you the difference in short:
Sitecore has broader architecture and more powerfull UI. CMS is deeply configurable and highly extensible, it has clever publishing and caching system, powerful search and page editor. But it doesn't provide much out of box and UI is pretty old, slow and hard to learn. So this will be a long journey until you understand it good and make a good support of all its features for editors.
EPiServer is easy, friendly to users and developers. It provides an essential bunch of features out of box, has easy UI and page editor, good drag-and-drop experience, easy personalization. It is code-first, distributed with NuGet, provides dependency injection for its services, out of box MVC support. But it's not so extensible and configurable, has pure search (without expensive EPiFind module) and generally lower-featured comparing to Sitecore. So it's good for small/middle websites, but can be an obstacle in complex solutions.
Both have similar tree-item concept, rich documentation, pure public module system and hard UI customization. Both expensive and not open source.
As I know, Umbraco is pretty similar to EPiServer and Sitecore, but free and open source. Of course you get less features, more bugs, not much docs and no free support.
Orchard is really different comparing to other three CMS. It is module-based like Wordpress: you use standard or public modules and themes, instead of writing the whole website from scratch. You create your own themes and modules to customize the website and CMS. So entire CMS is highly extensible and provides a lot of free community modules. But in the same time you lose control and learning curve is much longer. Orchard is free and open-source, entirely MVC-based, UI and API are well done, but it can be hard for both developers and editors to understand it.
WordPress 与 Episerver：
http://tedgustaf.com/blog/ 2011/2/comparison-of-episerver-and-wordpress/
好吧，写这篇文章的人是一名 Episerver 顾问，但它很有趣且平衡。
Wordpress vs Episerver:
http://tedgustaf.com/blog/2011/2/comparison-of-episerver-and-wordpress/
OK so the guy who wrote that is an Episerver consultant but it's interesting and balanced.
所有不同的网络内容管理系统都有不同的优势。因此，哪一种最适合您很大程度上取决于您创建的网站类型、您的预算以及您认为 CMS 中最重要的内容。
例如，Orchard 和 SiteCore 是非常不同的系统。
我在那里工作时有点偏见，但我相信 Webnodes CMS 比您的系统有几个重要的优势提到。
关键词：内容之间的关系、不同内容类型的实际类、用于所有数据访问的自定义 LINQ 提供程序、将所有内容公开为 OData 端点等。Microsoft
使用我们的 CMS 在 Mix11 上演示 OData。 来自 Mix 11 的视频
All the different web content management systems have different strengths. So which one is best for you depends a lot on what kind of sites you create, what kind of budget you have and what you think matters the most in a CMS.
For example, Orchard and SiteCore are VERY different systems.
I'm a bit biased as I work there, but I believe that Webnodes CMS have several important advantages over the systems you mention.
Keywords: Relations between content, actual classes for the different content types, custom LINQ provider for all data access, expose all content as an OData endpoint etc.
Microsoft used our CMS to demonstrate OData at Mix11. Video from Mix 11