This is Signal vs. Noise, a weblog by 37signals about design, business, experience, simplicity, the web, culture, and more. Established 1999 in Chicago. Follow us on Twitter for more information on our products.

Spot on, finally a CMS I would be happy to use!

I don’t want to say that it’s the same, because it’s not, but jekyll is a pretty cool project by the GitHub guys that does something sort of similar for blogs.

To say its not a CMS is splitting hairs. What is a CMS but a content management system? Yes I know you’re talking about this because its not a conventional CMS , but this is clearly a system for managing content without web-based access. It doesn’t have a web-based login because you use your FTP login to manage it. It doesn’t have an admin because you use your text editor to administrate it yourself.

It’s a system of templating your content in order for the view programming to read it properly. It’s refreshing because its what we all used to do: hand code the content except there’s one template that dynamically pulls in the content rather than a template we kept on our machine and used to start each file entry.

What’s old is new again with a twist using today’s tools.

no ‘cms’

Stacey could be today’s feature on http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/ (via Ray in the ‘Signs on Signs’ comments) :)

Reminds me of Blosxom, in a good way. There’s definitely a certain comfort in having the filesystem as your main UI.

Not bad, but nothing new or groundbreaking either. Looks very similar to other static website tools that have been around for a while, such as Webby or Webgen. I’ve been using Webby for my very simple consulting website (http://codemeup.com/) and have been very happy with it. It lets me use partials, layouts, and arbitrary markup languages (I use HAML but almost opted for Markdown), and deploy with a simple Rake task. Definitely beats installing a database based CMS for such as simple website.

I hate file systems and folders, but it’s nice to see someone do something different.

:-) I got that deep into “modern” CMS business that this solution seems to bit little bit surreal for me. That is bad. Looks like I am thinking little stereotypically. Logins, windows, WYSIWYGs… Thanks for pointing to something that distracts me from my intellectual routine.

Normally I’m a fan of adverbing words. But opinionatedly just sounds wrong to me.

I think, more accurately, it’s a CMS that’s easier to set up if you find editing text files easier than using a GUI .

In other words, this is better if you think this is better.

The advantage over many CMSs is that it’s not trying to be all things to all people.

This is pretty slick. I like Jekyll a lot, but it’s really suited for posting text and code online. It’s not too smart when it comes to displaying a bunch of JPEGs. This seems to do a similar task, but with a different focus.

This is exactly how I develop a lot of site for clients that don’t have an SQL enabled server.

I tell them, you can manage it via FTP !