3 ms·
Some people prefer to have their hosting taken care of, that don't care to worry about all the sysadmin stuff, and will pay a premium for it. Others prefer to b
by narrowrail 11y ago
Some people prefer to have their hosting taken care of, that don't care to worry about all the sysadmin stuff, and will pay a premium for it. Others prefer to be in control of their own stuff without having to worry about some "cloud" provider.
No offense, but this seems to be the worst of both worlds:
I still have to be aware of 0-day exploits and keep my libraries patched/up-to-date, but I also have to hope that my "cloud" provider does the same (as well as not get overwhelmed if traffic spikes in the middle of the day). I guess I don't understand what problem this solves other than providing a recurring revenue mechanism for you without the benefit of relieving myself from the responsibility of server upkeep.
- ivopetkov 11y agoUpdating a self-hosted CMS sometimes is a scary thing and many people don't update or update very late. We all know how bad this can be. With Bear CMS your management tools (we don't call them backend because we offer live editing) are always up-to-date because they run on our servers. You get full control of your website (write custom PHP code for example) but don't worry about securing and maintaining your DB and administrator tools.
- notahacker 11y agoThe closest thing I've seen to this is the platforms aimed mostly at providing providing datastores for sites/apps that pull in all their dynamic content on the client side. But these have the obvious advantage to the content manager of the client side app potentially being a static page pulling in content via js or a mobile app, as opposed to an Apache server with a PHP installation that still needs patching and securing...
- scarecrowbob 11y agoThat sounds like an advantage for the people billing for the CMS, not for end users. It really does sound like the worst of all worlds.