3 ms·
How is that odd? They have chosen not to allocate resources towards building their own blog site, and instead have gone with what is, like it or not, the standa
by vermilingua 3y ago
How is that odd? They have chosen not to allocate resources towards building their own blog site, and instead have gone with what is, like it or not, the standard format for blogging. Seems exactly on-message to me.
- TylerE 3y ago> Like our website, our machines are simple > PHP/Wordpress. Pick one.
- maxbond 3y ago> Like our website, our machines are simple so we can build millions of them as quickly as possible. WordPress seems like a reasonable choice to build a website "as quickly as possible".
- ashald 3y agoUm, no. That's index.html, and they already used it for the homepage.
- maxbond 3y agoTo publish blog posts? No, it's really not. I don't like WordPress either, I prefer static site generators, but if you're going for something simple and fast to setup it's a legitimate choice.
- TylerE 3y agoI would never describe, with a straight face, WordPress as "simple". Nothing with that many sharp edges is.
- maxbond 3y agoIt's not that WordPress, the technology, is simple. It's that deploying the bog standard solution, rather than investing energy into researching alternatives and developing workflows for them, is a simple and pragmatic approach. Those sharp edges aren't really relevant anyway on a hosted service (wordpress.com) where they are buffed out for you.
- TylerE 3y agoIt's simple until you miss some security update and get 0wned.
- maxbond 3y agoAgain, they're using a hosted service. They aren't on the hook for security updates, wordpress.com is. What do you propose is the more pragmatic solution to standing up a blog, compared to going to wordpress.com and registering a free tier account?