Re:More details please (Score 1)

Whilst there are restictions in place, if you're using it for the right job then this should never have happened in the first place.

There are bonuses to using Joomla which outweight Drupal in a very strong way. The most important one is how the client will actually be editing content. Drupal doesn't come with a WYSIWYG editor, and it is not integrated in anyway with the CMS itself. Joomla does come with TinyMCE standard and image inserting tools (mambots). Joomla is more for actually putting the content in.

Plone is far superior in this, but Plone developers are expensive, rare and hosting is the same (although perhaps not that expensive?)

Sometimes (most times) more time is spent actually training a client on the inadequacies if inserting content into Drupal rather than teaching them about how to tweak the look and feel of the site. You need a handful of modules added on just give the basic functionality of editing content. Drupal houses have this as part of their workflow, but why should it be? I know there are some heated debates on the forums on it anyway.

The chances of a client who uses a Joomla solution, which is albiet, wanting a vertical brochure website, will pay for updates when exactly? They will only pay for updates when someone tells them it's insecure or perhaps they get hacked. The chances of this actually happening in the 4 years I've been developing websites for customers in both solutions is exactly: 0... they're all still running too.

At the end of the day, think of the client and your costs. Drupal isn't a paradise for designers or developers (but you can argue this), nor is it a paradise for the client. Joomla is better for the client because it's completely logical, and piss easy to include a Pakt book on managing content in your fees for the job. Sure there might be some core hacks, but the job is finished quickly and the client is happy (and you will get recommendations because they actually ENJOY managing their website).