Cockpit is about simplicity. I like it to be lightweight and with a minimum of overhead ... but I also understand you arguments. It's all a matter of taste :)
Even if there were an overhead, I'd rather have the stability of a fully tested framework than relying on an implementation with no tests.
What you have essentially done is created a framework, which in order for me to extend your CMS, I am going to have to learn. I also would lose the added benefit of not being able to use existing packages for (insert widely used fw here).
I can't really understand why you aren't using composer as well, it seems as though you are managing your own dependencies in the vendor/ folder?
Look, I have respect for you going out and creating your own cms. But I seem to get constantly disappointed when I dig into the nuts and bolts, and unfortunately this one is no different.
So, you're saying, Cockpit will have editable content blocks so the client can easily structure a page with different kinds of blocks? I might love you if that's it :)
The docs are not readable on windows chrome, many people make this mistake it's uncanny, last week Google did this when they launched their new webdev tools.
Sure, but you spent so much effort and time making the beautiful landing page and documentation, you might as well have a demo. I can't be the only person too "lazy" to download, and run it.
FWIW I second this, it looks beautiful, but setting up a site on my VPS takes work; even if it's 20 seconds to download and install, I have to set up configs, DNS, directories, etc. Would love to see a demo.
How about creating a docker container? http://docker.io
This would actually add the benefit of easy evaluation, while also helping us to jumpstart a project with cockpit.
You should wrap it up in a docker container. All you need to do is create a Dockerfile in your repo and wire it up to http://hub.docker.com . That way the "try it out" steps are "docker run faulancer/cockpit-demo"
It won't work with vagrant, it strips out the port number when doing redirects (uses them a lot it appears) so you always end up with failed redirects.
