Which Type of Blogging Platform Is Best?
In recent posts, I've written about the differences between some of the more popular blog CMSes (Content Management Systems). This post is an aggregate summary of them.
There are two main types of blogging platforms: (1) Those that create and serve up hard HTML files (i.e., with URLs that have a file extension of ".html" or ".htm"); and (2) Those that serve up files dynamically (i.e., with URLs that just have a directory name, or with a file extension of their underlying program code type - such as .php, pl, .cgi, .asp, or something of that nature). Which is better?
Both types of have their pros and cons. It's easier to give some examples. Free hosts such as Blogspot.com use blog platforms such as Blogspot.com, which generates hard (static) HTML files. OpenSource platforms that are installed on your own server, such as MovableType, WordPress, TextPattern, and Bloxsom generate pages dynamically, either from a database or a plain text file.
Some of the pros and cons of these types of blog CMSes are as follows:
So which type of blog CMS is better? Well, it seems like a no-brainer, because you want to accomodate the readers before you accomodate yourself: a static CMS seems more suitable. Unfortunately, the drawback is that most static CMSes seem to be on free hosts, and they have performance bottlenecks at various times of day due to popularity.
Now that's not to say one of the OpenSource dynamic CMSes don't have a plugin that generates hard HTML, but I have yet to see this. Some of them cannot even generate URLs that use the title of the blog entry, let alone hard pages. So, the ideal solution would be an OpenSource CMS plugin that generates hard pages that live on your own web server. This would be the best of both worlds.
(c) Copyright: 2005-present, Raj Kumar Dash, http://blogspinner.countwordula/
There are two main types of blogging platforms: (1) Those that create and serve up hard HTML files (i.e., with URLs that have a file extension of ".html" or ".htm"); and (2) Those that serve up files dynamically (i.e., with URLs that just have a directory name, or with a file extension of their underlying program code type - such as .php, pl, .cgi, .asp, or something of that nature). Which is better?
Both types of have their pros and cons. It's easier to give some examples. Free hosts such as Blogspot.com use blog platforms such as Blogspot.com, which generates hard (static) HTML files. OpenSource platforms that are installed on your own server, such as MovableType, WordPress, TextPattern, and Bloxsom generate pages dynamically, either from a database or a plain text file.
Some of the pros and cons of these types of blog CMSes are as follows:
- Static pages are generally served faster than those pages constructed dynamically from a database. The more popular your site becomes, the slower it becomes if you use a dynamic CMS.
- Posting to a static CMS is generally slower than to a dynamic CMS. This is because the entire blog's post pages have to be regenerated to show the latest post's hyperlink. The more entries you post to a static CMS, the slower the process becomes.
So which type of blog CMS is better? Well, it seems like a no-brainer, because you want to accomodate the readers before you accomodate yourself: a static CMS seems more suitable. Unfortunately, the drawback is that most static CMSes seem to be on free hosts, and they have performance bottlenecks at various times of day due to popularity.
Now that's not to say one of the OpenSource dynamic CMSes don't have a plugin that generates hard HTML, but I have yet to see this. Some of them cannot even generate URLs that use the title of the blog entry, let alone hard pages. So, the ideal solution would be an OpenSource CMS plugin that generates hard pages that live on your own web server. This would be the best of both worlds.
(c) Copyright: 2005-present, Raj Kumar Dash, http://blogspinner.countwordula/
