Hacker Read

morog · 2023-01-23 06:05:07

I guess he's referring to WordPress.com which means no updates needed...at least for simple sites

happyopossum | karma 17528 | avg karma 22.24 · | 2022-08-04 14:29:28

Based on context, I'd assume GP was referring to Wordpress.com, which requires none of that...

apricot13 | karma 176 | avg karma 0.92 · | 2021-11-01 05:15:26

because setting up a static site updating it once in a blue moon then remembering the commands to do so a second time in a few months time is less reliable than logging into a platform that isn't wordpress.com!

rhizome | karma 18082 | avg karma 1.64 · | 2017-03-24 19:17:48

But you don't need to be a programmer to install (and keep up to date) WordPress.

That was essentially my point.

reply

bacon | karma 2 | avg karma 0.4 · | 2014-03-11 00:38:44+00:00

He means WordPress.

mahouse | karma 737 | avg karma 1.04 · | 2015-05-15 01:18:23+00:00

So your point is that it does not matter that WordPress is a huge mess as long as it updates automatically?

jonknee | karma 33361 | avg karma 4.51 · | 2011-06-11 18:44:09+00:00

The headline says "static sites". That means WordPress isn't being used.

ekianjo | karma 34827 | avg karma 2.44 · | 2020-02-14 16:12:11+00:00

> Can you imagine running the same WordPress version for 25 years?

If you keep active on your Wordpress install, the regular updates will be no issue for you and will (almost) never break your website. Not sure why you would expect a regular Wordpress user to run the initial install without recommended/mandatory upgrades over a long period of time.

reply

kingsidharth | karma 3245 | avg karma 3.62 · | 2011-02-23 10:07:09

The only difference is ghat they usually say "you have to download the latest version of WordPress from their website."

jdminhbg | karma 8659 | avg karma 4.29 · | 2016-01-27 18:15:34+00:00

> Somebody has to maintain a Wordpress blog

"Hosted blog" here means someone else is maintaining it -- Wordpress.com or some other provider. You pay a little bit of extra cash, and you don't have to spend hours deploying patches.

reply

wolrah | karma 1872 | avg karma 3.02 · | 2022-04-15 13:19:11

> It may not be very hard to maintain, but you still have to maintain it.

When the maintenance is "ensure auto updates are on, and don't do anything that would not get updated automatically" it's not like it requires regular effort.

> Whereas if you just have a collection of articles that you want to keep around as an archive, if you convert them to a static site, you can basically forget about them afterward...

Your web server, your operating system, etc. still require at bare minimum the same level of maintenance.

You can outsource that maintenance to someone else of course, but you can do the same with WP as well.

--

My point is that WP alone doesn't massively increase the maintenance burden, it's what people tend to do with (to?) WP that increases the burden and eventually leads to unmaintained sites.

reply

debacle | karma 7577 | avg karma 1.76 · | 2014-11-13 14:47:03

Considering that a non-negligible percentage of hosts that offer WordPress as a service run out of date versions of WordPress, you're probably right.

derefr | karma 53572 | avg karma 3.59 · | 2022-04-15 23:34:10

> competent and secure hosting for an old Wordpress blog

Amusingly, nobody here has stated the obvious: wordpress.com.

reply

alnayyir | karma 2252 | avg karma 1.73 · | 2010-07-13 05:22:21+00:00

To be fair, I don't trust people willing to use Wordpress to be diligent about keeping it up to date to begin with.

Frankly if you're going to use Wordpress, just use their hosted service.

Please

reply

philltopia | karma 29 | avg karma 2.64 · | 2009-07-13 15:41:56+00:00

Wait, what's wrong with Wordpress's update mechanism? I've only used it for a short while but I've been nothing short of amazed how simple and easy it is (two button presses), compared to years of downloading packages, diffing files, uploading files, running database upload scripts, fixing errors, and so on under phpBB/IPB/MediaWiki.

lowercased | karma 2339 | avg karma 2.55 · | 2018-11-23 12:23:04+00:00

no, because it takes time/effort to keep all that up to date. if wp.com provided it for a fee for wp.com-hosted sites, i'd understand that.

rmccue | karma 1342 | avg karma 2.9 · | 2015-11-24 00:08:28+00:00

> This entire upgrade utilizes the new WordPress rest API and the new WordPress.com is open source.

To clarify: this uses the WordPress.com REST API, which has been around for a number of years, not the core REST API being integrated into WordPress (the software). Also, not all of WordPress.com is open source (i.e. you can't just clone down WP.com and run it), just the new interface. :)

reply

jonheller | karma 537 | avg karma 3.73 · | 2013-10-14 13:12:35+00:00

> This is literally just a setup and run blog.

Wordpress isn't? Unless things have changed you install it and start adding blog posts.

reply

hbcondo714 | karma 4141 | avg karma 3.55 · | 2019-06-11 19:33:53

We have some sites hosted under WordPress.com's Business Plan; luckily it looks like we are not affected by this.

markhesketh | karma 3 | avg karma 0.5 · | 2023-03-17 15:00:37

They could be referencing wordpress.com, which is the hosted version of WordPress, rather than wordpress.org which is the open-source self-hosted version.