3 ms·
Oh I'm not pointing at container technology. I'm talking web backend technology in general. I mean this is 2018. No well known company's blog on AWS should ever
by peterwwillis 9y ago
Oh I'm not pointing at container technology. I'm talking web backend technology in general. I mean this is 2018. No well known company's blog on AWS should ever go down at all, unless the AWS service in the region is down. The fact that it's down is not a Docker failure or a Wordpress failure or a Database failure, as there are widely known methods to scale all these things. The problem is that putting the puzzle together is just complicated enough that it's easy to get wrong. If even Docker's blog can't scale, we have bigger issues as an industry.
- markbnj 9y agoFair enough. I took "this technology" to be a reference to Docker given the context.
- andrewstuart2 9y agoIf Docker's blog was their core product, I would probably be more likely to agree. The truth is, they don't get ROI from engineering their blog to anticipate or quickly respond to all the traffic of a major announcement, because those are few and far between. The level of complexity is moot because the benefits will only outweigh a very small cost. They build container tech. That doesn't mean they will benefit from engineering the best solution for everything they do.
- peterwwillis 9y agoI'm not arguing with that, I'm saying it's dumb that we still have to work hard to get a blog to scale.
- jabv 9y agoI'm sorry, is your argument based on the current year? I presume you mean otherwise, but that's how it's written.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoYes, and it's a perfectly fair argument. Content hosting sites are supposed to host content. That's what they do. If a site doesn't work under unusual but not outrageous conditions, it's fundamentally broken and not fit for purpose. The industry should be much less tolerant of excuses for tools and systems that perform poorly under load. It's had a couple of decades to get this right now. How is it acceptable that this is even a problem?
- seanp2k2 9y agoStatic site generators are an infinitely better choice for making actual blogs. Wordpress has evolved into a CMS similar to Drupal or Joomla with all the available plugins. You can make it into a store or a wiki or basically anything, but you probably shouldn’t. Wordpress was really cool back in the PHP5 days, but Moveable Type and other “old school” static CMS generators always scaled better. Today with node and the dozens of good SSGs, there’s really no excuse to use WP for a blog. The content doesn’t change between page loads, so why would you server-side generate the page dynamically on each page load? The way that it works is fundamentally wrong, and while it’s not very hard to fix with Varnish or WPSuperCache...why not start with the right tool for the job?
- zenlikethat 9y agoTry getting 5+ marketing people to learn git and GitHub sometime and let me know how it goes.
- skellera 9y agoFor just the blogging portion, you can just add the blog posts directly through github (the markdown files for posts). https://help.github.com/articles/creating-new-files/ https://help.github.com/articles/creating-new-files/ But yeah, it’s less user friendly. I’m sure someone will make a good solution for this soon.
- OtterCoder 9y agoGit is not for deployment. Also, hardcoding blog posts in the repo is a dumb solution, and not necessary for a static site. The user built markup should be separate from the code that generates static pages from it.