5 ms·

No-backend cuasi-static would be a new era. There is no reason for a dynamic CMS on sites that are updated twice a month and maybe reach 50k visits/mo; I am sur

No-backend cuasi-static would be a new era. There is no reason for a dynamic CMS on sites that are updated twice a month and maybe reach 50k visits/mo; I am sure the vast majority of WP sites out there are of such nature.

duaneb 12y ago
> maybe reach 50k visits/mo Also, the more visits, the less of a need for a dynamic CMS.
- edgarvaldes 12y ago
  Why so?
  - juliangregorian 12y ago
    Presumably because you'd be more likely to be using Varnish or a CDN?
  - duaneb 12y ago
    Static sites are trivially cacheable. Caching gets cheaper per request the higher the volume.
deanotron 12y ago
Static CMS's are great for personal projects, or very tech-friendly clients, but most clients paying for a website want the ability to manage content in a user friendly way. I'm sure the vast majority of WP sites have been built for a paying client.
- bikamonki 12y ago
  I've done a ton of WP sites, maybe two clients update themselves. Besides, who says a no-backend CMS cannot be as friendly to use?
  - deanotron 12y ago
    This is true about infrequent updates - it may be more for providing the appearance of total control. I would love to see a user-friendly universal app for managing static sites (Jeckyl, Docpad) that is something someone of my Mom's tech capability could use. (and let's be honest, WP itself is sometimes "way too much")
    - bikamonki 12y ago
      More than ultra-friendly I think what the static site CMS ecosystem is missing are tons of beautiful themes. Let's be clear about it: the client only sees and complains about the looks. Once we have enough themes out there it will take off. Lately I am playing with a homemade hack to use any html template on a static site generator....let's see how that turns out.
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  The backend could be dynamic, creating static html for the frontend. Which is essentially, what the numerous caching plugins are doing, just in a very convoluted way.
  - nodata 12y ago
    and what movabletype does.
- muuck 12y ago
  that's true clients think they want a CMS system, the reality is however the one who does the updating is usually you.
- MollyR 12y ago
  I'm running into this with a client. They want a friendly easy way to manage a complex case management system, but they don't understand how some of interconnected relationships work between the data they want. So trying to cross that chasm, of explaining what they actually want implies for the data has been miserable. Somethings just aren't simple :(
  - bikamonki 12y ago
    Maybe this will help: always charge a monthly SLA b/c systems are not like a haircut that you sell and forget about it, systems are alive monsters. When clients complain about the SLA use this story: You: Do you own a car a pay insurance? Client: Yes (most likely answer) You: Do you use the insurance? Client: No (if client answers yes they are conceding the point in advance!) You: But you pay for it regardless just in case you need it. Same deal with SLA contracts. Cars break, systems break.
powertower 12y ago
That is why you would use a caching proxy like Varnish (or Squid) and/or a web-server cache module like mod_cache (Apache) for. Using either of the above, you'd reduce the latency and increase the through-put of WP to the likes of hosting a simple HTML page on nginx. The picture gets a bit more complicated with the back-end admin area, user logins, sessions, dynamic page parts, etc. And there are ways to either handle it or just bypass the caching layer for it, but for handling reader traffic, caching is the key regardless of which CMS you use.
- vlunkr 12y ago
  Yes, but I think the point being made, (which I agree with), is that a huge amount of sites using WP, or another CMS, are updated rarely, and would be simpler, faster, and more secure if they were static sites instead. Also, there are a number of amazing static site generators out there.
ncza 12y ago
The majority of wp sites would be blogs. Features like comments are crucial here.
- bikamonki 12y ago
  Disqus? Name a dynamic component of a website: there is a SAAS for it, normally free for small low-traffic sites.
  - ncza 12y ago
    That is not a good choice per se. If you use disqus you let some third party spy on your visitors, you give away content that belongs to your site to a random service and you require javascript for something as trivial as reading/writing comments. You might as well use Facebook or a random hosted service as your blog

duaneb 12y ago

> maybe reach 50k visits/mo Also, the more visits, the less of a need for a dynamic CMS.

edgarvaldes 12y ago
Why so?
- juliangregorian 12y ago
  Presumably because you'd be more likely to be using Varnish or a CDN?
- duaneb 12y ago
  Static sites are trivially cacheable. Caching gets cheaper per request the higher the volume.

deanotron 12y ago

Static CMS's are great for personal projects, or very tech-friendly clients, but most clients paying for a website want the ability to manage content in a user friendly way. I'm sure the vast majority of WP sites have been built for a paying client.

bikamonki 12y ago
I've done a ton of WP sites, maybe two clients update themselves. Besides, who says a no-backend CMS cannot be as friendly to use?
- deanotron 12y ago
  This is true about infrequent updates - it may be more for providing the appearance of total control. I would love to see a user-friendly universal app for managing static sites (Jeckyl, Docpad) that is something someone of my Mom's tech capability could use. (and let's be honest, WP itself is sometimes "way too much")
  - bikamonki 12y ago
    More than ultra-friendly I think what the static site CMS ecosystem is missing are tons of beautiful themes. Let's be clear about it: the client only sees and complains about the looks. Once we have enough themes out there it will take off. Lately I am playing with a homemade hack to use any html template on a static site generator....let's see how that turns out.
pgeorgi 12y ago
The backend could be dynamic, creating static html for the frontend. Which is essentially, what the numerous caching plugins are doing, just in a very convoluted way.
- nodata 12y ago
  and what movabletype does.
muuck 12y ago
that's true clients think they want a CMS system, the reality is however the one who does the updating is usually you.
MollyR 12y ago
I'm running into this with a client. They want a friendly easy way to manage a complex case management system, but they don't understand how some of interconnected relationships work between the data they want. So trying to cross that chasm, of explaining what they actually want implies for the data has been miserable. Somethings just aren't simple :(
- bikamonki 12y ago
  Maybe this will help: always charge a monthly SLA b/c systems are not like a haircut that you sell and forget about it, systems are alive monsters. When clients complain about the SLA use this story: You: Do you own a car a pay insurance? Client: Yes (most likely answer) You: Do you use the insurance? Client: No (if client answers yes they are conceding the point in advance!) You: But you pay for it regardless just in case you need it. Same deal with SLA contracts. Cars break, systems break.

powertower 12y ago

That is why you would use a caching proxy like Varnish (or Squid) and/or a web-server cache module like mod_cache (Apache) for. Using either of the above, you'd reduce the latency and increase the through-put of WP to the likes of hosting a simple HTML page on nginx. The picture gets a bit more complicated with the back-end admin area, user logins, sessions, dynamic page parts, etc. And there are ways to either handle it or just bypass the caching layer for it, but for handling reader traffic, caching is the key regardless of which CMS you use.

vlunkr 12y ago
Yes, but I think the point being made, (which I agree with), is that a huge amount of sites using WP, or another CMS, are updated rarely, and would be simpler, faster, and more secure if they were static sites instead. Also, there are a number of amazing static site generators out there.

ncza 12y ago

The majority of wp sites would be blogs. Features like comments are crucial here.

bikamonki 12y ago
Disqus? Name a dynamic component of a website: there is a SAAS for it, normally free for small low-traffic sites.
- ncza 12y ago
  That is not a good choice per se. If you use disqus you let some third party spy on your visitors, you give away content that belongs to your site to a random service and you require javascript for something as trivial as reading/writing comments. You might as well use Facebook or a random hosted service as your blog