Shock horror, I don't use a static site generator. Here' why:
there was at some point a wordpress plugin that output a site to static html but it wasn't easy to use. I would love to have a plugin etc that would convert parts of a site to static.
or alternatively a static site creator with a gui.
@eylul it still exists, I used to use it in fact. But having to generate you site then upload it every time you write a post gets tedious.
also there is no way to have the few pages that does need the interactivity - like forms.
Ill definitely se if this is flexible enough to switch my portfolio to.
and if nothing else this might work for another person who needs to be able edit a basic site.
thanks for the rec
@kev A static site generator doesn't preclude your workflow, in theory. It's just… no static site generator (that I know of) has a web UI.
>Want to blog on my iPad? I can. Want to do it on my phone? No problem. On a machine I don’t normally use? Not an issue, as long as it has a browser.
I sometimes write posts on my phone, which I sync using Nextcloud Notes. I only do when I travel by train and have some time to kill. Writing on a touchscreen is a pain in the a**.
>The world is mobile first these day, like it or not […]
Says who? You might be mobile first, but it doesn't make the world mobile first. :)
@hund says the world. 🙂
I'll turn that on its head - just because you're _not_ mobile first, doesn't mean the world isn't.
Analytics show the world is mobile first. If you don't have a good mobile site these days, your site won't grow.
Look at services like Instagram - they're mobile ONLY. For a lot of services now, their webUI is the second rate citizen to their mobile apps.
@kev I didn't mean the opposite either. What I meant is that some services and some websites are XYZ only. A lot of users use crap like Instagram and a lot of users only use the mobile only, but it doens't mean the planet is mobile only. I know A LOT of users who's anything but mobile only, or even a a tiny bit mobile to beging with. :)
@kev Very well written with good points I didn't think of as well. For blogging or where being able to update information as quickly as possible from anywhere (not just blogs, but news sites as well) I can see where static would be a headache. Now if you don't do a lot with it, or don't have the need for that kind of mobility, static seems easier since there's little to no concern with getting into it to make changes. To each their own, but as always well written and thoughtful as always Kev!
@DonMcCollough absolutely! If I didn't have a blog, I'd definitely use a static site.
@kev I have two issues with this post:
1) Security. It's hopefully better now, but wordpress has been riddled with security issues that aren't at all fixed by using strong auth. They're exploits that circumvent auth, so your password doesn't matter. I don't know the current state of this to be fair, maybe it's audited and deemed safe at this point?
2) Response time. Studies have shown that it matters and the timescale is milliseconds and not seconds when it comes to people's experiences.
@kev though, in fairness, the response time is mostly relevant if you're selling something. Either ads or a service.
You'll make more money with a faster response time. For a site that doesn't generate revenue directly it's obviously not a concern how many people are turned off by bad response times.
That doesn't mean people aren't noticing though, which is how your post made it sound.
@kungtotte I couldn’t disagree more.
1) the vast majority of vulnerabilities in WP are introduced by plugins. Vulnerabilities in WP core are patched very quickly. Many WP sites get compromised because of sloppy admin. If I did get popped, that’s what backups are for.
2) are you seriously telling me that you can tell the difference between a site that loads in 2 seconds and a site that loads in 2.1 seconds?
Between 2 & 5 seconds, yeah. But not milliseconds. That’s rubbish.
@kev 1) you're not refuting what I'm saying. Strong passwords and MFA aren't helping you against exploits that circumvent auth, regardless of where they're coming from (core or plugins. These days I guess it's mostly plugins but it used to be core as well). The strongest password in the world won't help you if your attacker *isn't using your password to gain access*.
I've got several links for point #2 so I'll post those in a follow-up toot:
0.1s is when people feel things aren't instantaneous.
Moving from 0.4s to 0.9s decreased ad revenues by 20%.
People literally go to other sites when load times are >3 seconds, and they're already angry when it's >2 seconds.
If you don't care about this for your site, no worries, but don't spread misinformation that these things don't matter because they actually do.
@kungtotte I never said speed doesn’t matter, and I never implied that it didn’t. What I said was that milliseconds do not matter when it comes to website load times in the real world. You’re not going to lose visitors over .1 of a second. Latency on the internet at peak times can slow a site down way more than that.
I’m ending this conversation now, we clearly don’t agree and are just going round in circles.
@kev @kungtotte I do appreciate the main point of your article, which is that everything is a tradeoff, people will come to different conclusions about what technologies they use, and that's OK. It makes me sad that both here and on Lobsters, people want to ignore that point and argue about why WordPress is objectively, universally inferior. Let the man use WordPress in peace!
@kungtotte 1) I am. If you’re not introducing the vuln in the first place by not using vulnerable plugins, then you’re good.
The whole “Wordpress is insecure thing” is complete and utter rubbish. If it was trivial to compromise WP and it’s running on 35% of websites, there would be a lot more compromised sites out there.
There is a really easy way: Use GitHub or Gitea or whatever as your web markdown editor (create, edit, delete posts). Everything else will be handled by a CI system and triggert by a master branch commit. This is how I use Hugo
@xoxys it’s not really simple though is it? For a developer, yeah, but not for an average user.
@kev Depends on what you'll call an average user :) GitHub has as wysiwyg editor for markdown, beside that everyone who would like to use hugo/jekyll should be able to write markdown. Setting up a CI Pipeline with e.g. Drone CI to build Hugo Page and pulish it to GH pages is really straight forward IMO. Running and maintaining a WP would be more complecated ;)
@xoxys I don’t think so. Anyone who has used MS Word could write a post on Wordpress (plenty of places offer managed WP hosting for cheap).
Those same people would not be able to setup a Hugo site.
I consider myself to be fairly technical and I wouldn’t be able to do it without spending a fair amount of time reading documentation.
@kev Do you use a hosted Wordpress? You don't mantain Wordpress by yourself? Well, then you may be right. And as you say, use what fits your need. I just wanted to show that you'll also need just a browser once you have a running setup.
@kev It ultimately ends up being lose/lose for me either way. I don't like to sysadmin at home(I don't pay me enough for that), so my Wordpress install gets out of date and/or some PHP update breaks everything or I try to upgrade too many version of Wordpress and it breaks. 🤷♂️
@kev I don't really question your choice of blogging software (everybody should use their fav stuff and it's sad if there's stigma around not using the "geekier" option), but I don't agree with your argument: there are many laptops just as "mobile" as any useful tablet out there.
I really whish there was an SSG w/ desktop & mobile GUI frontends tho. Publii has a desktop but no mobile.
@kev we’ve used a static generated site for a bit over a year at work. Now we have a marketing team and we are suddenly realizing how much easier something like Wordpress is to hand off to a marketing team to do things themselves.
Easy of use is definitely has to weigh in sometimes
@geekgonecrazy I think so. I am a technical guy and could use a SSG, but maintaining it is time I feel I could put to better use elsewhere.
I think SSG are brilliant for some people and they are blazing fast out the gate. If I didn’t have a blog, I’d very likely use one.
@kev if I blogged more frequently and ever from mobile this might become a real scenario for me too. Git from mobile shell or otherwise is totally doable but phone always feels super small to me when I start working with a shell and definitely more cumbersome
@kev "sshing into a Linux box and editing with vim"
He writes like that's a bad thing. ;)
Different strokes for different folks, but if starting an ssh session is too hard, I'm sure a clever hacker could figure out a little magic with git, cron, and a couple of shell scripts.
@kev Actually, I have been on a long quest to find a way of making web content equally easy to post and edit from both a browser and a shell, depending on my environment at the moment.
@kev I don't either, although I'm experimenting with them to help create actual static sites that rarely need updated. My blog pages get cached to static HTML anyway—no PHP involved at all—so they're equally fast for all requests but the very first. And I've long implemented auto-updates for WordPress and the very, very few plugins I still allow. That said, some of the limitations mentioned are rather easily worked around by keeping source files in a publicly accessible Git repo.
@kev comment from lobste.rs is top notch:
"I find the name “static site generator” kind of subconsciously promotes the idea of this just being all about some static files that move from here to there. What they usually come with though is a super complicated, fragile, and regularly updating toolchain that puts at risk your ability to generate the static part that was supposed to be simple. ..."(1/2)
@kev ..."We have a couple “static” sites that are almost impossible to update now because the tooling that generates them is no longer being maintained, so it’s harder and harder to run that tooling successfully. They don’t feel like “static” sites very much anymore." (2/2)
@wizard yeah, I liked that one too.
@kev Your first point in the post, I consider a bug of mobile devices, not static websites. I think the wasted potential of mobile is profound. If a mobile device is the reason we need a complex stack to build a web page, then we're doing mobile computing wrong.
That's not to say I prefer wordpress to static or the other way round. Its just indicative of a problem when a device that can do amazing things, but can't manage to make it easy to do type and run some scripts.
@kev you have a very elegant website! Really interesting content, thankyou! ✊👏
I have a question (if you don't mind...) - it's about using Fork Awesome (which will slow the thing down, I know!) - I have put the code in between <head> and </head>, but when I try to insert the icons at https://clubb.cymru/sandbox/ just the code appears. Any idea?
@davidoclubb it's renderring them as a code block in WordPress. To add them, you need to change the block to a HTML block in the WordPress editor.
This is from the source of the page:
<pre class="wp-block-code"><code><i class="fa fa-car"></i>
<i class="fa fa-car" style="font-size:48px;"></i>
<i class="fa fa-car" style="font-size:60px;color:red;"></i></code></pre>
@kev doh..... hahaha thankyou!
And yes, you put me onto susty. Love it
@davidoclubb heyyy, that's the Susty theme. Well played! 🙂
@kev Editing posts on the blog website itself? That sounds really nice!
Right now I have a static site generator, and it is indeed a rub to edit markdown and then upload.
At least I don't edit remotely; I use a comfier local editor. Only then I upload it using `rsync`.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.