5 ms·

Conflicted. On one hand, we have a camp of people who would say "static content" almost always equals garbage content. Documentation aside, who would ever want

by tomkin 13y ago

Conflicted. On one hand, we have a camp of people who would say "static content" almost always equals garbage content. Documentation aside, who would ever want a static website? I don't see much advantage of having to setup environment, ensure libraries are installed, etc. – every time you want to do a simple change from a computer other than your own. I'll take WordPress over that any day. Scenario: You just noticed a major typo on your new, statically generated microsite - using Markdown, pelican, etc. ...but the only computer you have access to is running a fresh copy of Windows 8. Talk about your non-portable website.

makmanalp 13y ago
Eh. You can do something like set up a github repo with a webhook, such that every time you commit it just triggers a rebuild. Bam, instant web UI. Not the best, but yeah ...
- bobfunk 13y ago
  Wrote a blogpost on how to setup just that with GitHub and TravisCI for Jekyll. https://www.bitballoon.com/blog/2013/12/13/continous-deployments-for-jekyll-sites https://www.bitballoon.com/blog/2013/12/13/continous-deploym... The same technique would work for any static site generator.
lmm 13y ago
> Documentation aside, who would ever want a static website? Who would want a non-static website? I look at, say, gwern.net, and think: this is what blogs want to be, if we only took the time to categorize and have a sensible front page. The current "stream of posts" paradigm discourages you from polishing and improving your posts, and makes it hard to find anything older than a week or two. > I don't see much advantage of having to pre-setup your environment, ensure libraries are as required – every time you want to do a simple change from a computer other than your own? It's 2013; there's really no excuse for not having an easy way to set up your environment (i.e. pip+virtualenv in this case).
- tomkin 13y ago
  This only works if you are the only author/contributor. The technical expertise required to update a simple page is not within the wheelhouse of the average user. The article proposes dropping WordPress in favour of Pelican. WordPress is known for its accessibility to the average user, so my argument is simply: How is this making content accessible, easy to update? Insofar of the environment, technical expertise required, WordPress wins hands down.
Spittie 13y ago
He could have easily hosted his blog + all the tools on a vps (which you would need for a dynamic site anyway). Then fixing a typo would be only a matter of SSH-ing into your server.
- tomkin 13y ago
  But how is this easier than WordPress?
  - Spittie 13y ago
    It isn't. Nobody (or at least me) is saying that. But static blogs have other benefits, like being lighter on your host or allowing you to create a new post by just editing a text file in your favorite markup language.
lambda 13y ago
You download PuTTY, ssh to your host, and rebuild it? It's not like you can't run the static site generator hosted somewhere.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  Or just plug your USB key in with PuTTY Portable and FileZilla installed on it. If the static site generator tools run on Windows, we could probably make those portable, too.
- teleclimber 13y ago
  Or you could just SSH from your Android/iOS/whatever phone. It's safer than typing credentials in an untrusted computer anyways.
johnchristopher 13y ago
> Scenario: You just noticed a major typo on your new, statically generated microsite - using Markdown, pelican, etc. ...but the only computer you have access to is running a fresh copy of Windows 8. Could also be running a fresh HaikuOS version. If it's flatfile you update via ftp or direct shell access or some magic git recipe. I fail to see how running win8 prevents that. Moreover, if it's a fresh win8 installation you don't have that long random password in your head to log into your wordpress site anyway. Just a scenario.
- tomkin 13y ago
  I feel like my response to this article would have been different if it read: "Ditch WordPress. X combines Pelican, and a kick-ass control panel that installs on any computer in 30 seconds." I'm not against Pelican, I'm against the idea that this is somehow easier than WordPress. Adding a control panel that allows average people to edit content (Markdown or WYSIWYG, etc.). An installer that takes care of all the necessary required libraries, goes through steps to creating a scaffold, etc. Then you can compare it to WordPress.
coldtea 13y ago
>Conflicted. On one hand, we have a camp of people who would say "static content" almost always equals garbage content. Documentation aside, who would ever want a static website? Huh? I'm not even sure what "static" means in your use of the word. Who said that "static content almost always equals garbage content"? Never ever heard such a thing, and doesn't even make sense. >Scenario: You just noticed a major typo on your new, statically generated microsite - using Markdown, pelican, etc. ...but the only computer you have access to is running a fresh copy of Windows 8. You know that you could ssh to the server directly, right? -- and have it set up to rebuild after you change a text file. Plus it's not like it's any great emergency to correct a typo from Nepal or wherever you are without your laptop.
- tomkin 13y ago
  > You know that you could ssh to the server directly, right? -- and have it set up to rebuild after you change a text file. All of the replies to my comment are coming from someone with higher than average technical expertise. Say what you will about WordPress, but what is being proposed here is not an accessible experience. It's downright repulsive to someone without the technical requirements to simply publish a blog post. The (albeit, poorly contextualized) point that I was trying to make is, that you, the guy with the technical expertise can update the website. No one else can. This square-in-a-round-hole argument is brought to you by ego (NIH, small unmaintained websites, etc.), not a strive to make content easier to publish, easier to maintain. If the only author in mind is yourself, then ya, it works. Beyond that? As soon as you add another contributor, the complexity of updating the website skyrockets.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >All of the replies to my comment are coming from someone with higher than average technical expertise. This is Hacker News. We don't discuss from the point of view of someone who doesn't know these things.
    - tomkin 13y ago
      I think you should take a look at some of the top HN posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/best https://news.ycombinator.com/best The WordPress and Hacker News audiences are different, too, yet here we are comparing WordPress to a static site generator.

by tomkin 13y ago

makmanalp 13y ago

Eh. You can do something like set up a github repo with a webhook, such that every time you commit it just triggers a rebuild. Bam, instant web UI. Not the best, but yeah ...

bobfunk 13y ago
Wrote a blogpost on how to setup just that with GitHub and TravisCI for Jekyll. https://www.bitballoon.com/blog/2013/12/13/continous-deployments-for-jekyll-sites https://www.bitballoon.com/blog/2013/12/13/continous-deploym... The same technique would work for any static site generator.

lmm 13y ago

> Documentation aside, who would ever want a static website? Who would want a non-static website? I look at, say, gwern.net, and think: this is what blogs want to be, if we only took the time to categorize and have a sensible front page. The current "stream of posts" paradigm discourages you from polishing and improving your posts, and makes it hard to find anything older than a week or two. > I don't see much advantage of having to pre-setup your environment, ensure libraries are as required – every time you want to do a simple change from a computer other than your own? It's 2013; there's really no excuse for not having an easy way to set up your environment (i.e. pip+virtualenv in this case).

tomkin 13y ago
This only works if you are the only author/contributor. The technical expertise required to update a simple page is not within the wheelhouse of the average user. The article proposes dropping WordPress in favour of Pelican. WordPress is known for its accessibility to the average user, so my argument is simply: How is this making content accessible, easy to update? Insofar of the environment, technical expertise required, WordPress wins hands down.

Spittie 13y ago

He could have easily hosted his blog + all the tools on a vps (which you would need for a dynamic site anyway). Then fixing a typo would be only a matter of SSH-ing into your server.

tomkin 13y ago
But how is this easier than WordPress?
- Spittie 13y ago
  It isn't. Nobody (or at least me) is saying that. But static blogs have other benefits, like being lighter on your host or allowing you to create a new post by just editing a text file in your favorite markup language.

lambda 13y ago

You download PuTTY, ssh to your host, and rebuild it? It's not like you can't run the static site generator hosted somewhere.

JohnTHaller 13y ago
Or just plug your USB key in with PuTTY Portable and FileZilla installed on it. If the static site generator tools run on Windows, we could probably make those portable, too.
teleclimber 13y ago
Or you could just SSH from your Android/iOS/whatever phone. It's safer than typing credentials in an untrusted computer anyways.

johnchristopher 13y ago

> Scenario: You just noticed a major typo on your new, statically generated microsite - using Markdown, pelican, etc. ...but the only computer you have access to is running a fresh copy of Windows 8. Could also be running a fresh HaikuOS version. If it's flatfile you update via ftp or direct shell access or some magic git recipe. I fail to see how running win8 prevents that. Moreover, if it's a fresh win8 installation you don't have that long random password in your head to log into your wordpress site anyway. Just a scenario.

tomkin 13y ago
I feel like my response to this article would have been different if it read: "Ditch WordPress. X combines Pelican, and a kick-ass control panel that installs on any computer in 30 seconds." I'm not against Pelican, I'm against the idea that this is somehow easier than WordPress. Adding a control panel that allows average people to edit content (Markdown or WYSIWYG, etc.). An installer that takes care of all the necessary required libraries, goes through steps to creating a scaffold, etc. Then you can compare it to WordPress.

coldtea 13y ago

>Conflicted. On one hand, we have a camp of people who would say "static content" almost always equals garbage content. Documentation aside, who would ever want a static website? Huh? I'm not even sure what "static" means in your use of the word. Who said that "static content almost always equals garbage content"? Never ever heard such a thing, and doesn't even make sense. >Scenario: You just noticed a major typo on your new, statically generated microsite - using Markdown, pelican, etc. ...but the only computer you have access to is running a fresh copy of Windows 8. You know that you could ssh to the server directly, right? -- and have it set up to rebuild after you change a text file. Plus it's not like it's any great emergency to correct a typo from Nepal or wherever you are without your laptop.

tomkin 13y ago
> You know that you could ssh to the server directly, right? -- and have it set up to rebuild after you change a text file. All of the replies to my comment are coming from someone with higher than average technical expertise. Say what you will about WordPress, but what is being proposed here is not an accessible experience. It's downright repulsive to someone without the technical requirements to simply publish a blog post. The (albeit, poorly contextualized) point that I was trying to make is, that you, the guy with the technical expertise can update the website. No one else can. This square-in-a-round-hole argument is brought to you by ego (NIH, small unmaintained websites, etc.), not a strive to make content easier to publish, easier to maintain. If the only author in mind is yourself, then ya, it works. Beyond that? As soon as you add another contributor, the complexity of updating the website skyrockets.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >All of the replies to my comment are coming from someone with higher than average technical expertise. This is Hacker News. We don't discuss from the point of view of someone who doesn't know these things.
  - tomkin 13y ago
    I think you should take a look at some of the top HN posts: https://news.ycombinator.com/best https://news.ycombinator.com/best The WordPress and Hacker News audiences are different, too, yet here we are comparing WordPress to a static site generator.