I’ll just leave this here: https://www.alexkras.com/how-to-rollback-wordpress-5-to-olde...
WordPress 5.0: A Gutenberg FAQ
141–146 of 146 posts
Re: WordPress 5.0: A Gutenberg FAQ
#142I know a lot of people dislike PHP and WordPress, but I haven't found _anything_ that comes close to it in terms of sheer extensibility and plugin ecosystem. There's a plugin for pretty much anything you might want to do with a platform. I even moved my personal Jekyll-powered blog to WordPress a few years ago. My favorite thing about WordPress is that it's a known quantity. There's an easy to follow tutorial teachin…
John from Ghost here - Firstly, big congrats to WP team for launching 5.0!
We have lots of ideas around extensibility for Ghost, they just increasingly don't look very much like plugins. We've always been hesitant to ship something which developers would rely on and end up creating yet-another-janky-bloated-CMS, so we've admittedly held back on that front.
The thing about a lot of plugins is, the most popular ones feel like they really shouldn't be plugins. Many plugins are popular simply because they're things which should be in core, while others should simply be tutorials. You shouldn't need a plugin for good SEO, and you shouldn't need a plugin to insert a Mailchimp embed.
To that end we've got a large directory of integrations which show how to make 3rd party services work with Ghost: https://docs.ghost.org/integrations
As for the more advanced platform-specific functionality: I think the long term view of how all platforms will need to work looks a lot more like external APIs and microservices than locally installed hooks and filters.
Re: WordPress 5.0: A Gutenberg FAQ
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're absolutely right. The big issue (for me, at least), is that it's a security nightmare. At least last I used it. It seemed there were security exploits popping up every day. Either from the core codebase, or from some random plugin everyone seemed to be using. I think that was just the nature of how their plugin system works? I'm not sure if anything's changed, but _maintaining_ a WordPress install is not fun a…
> but _maintaining_ a WordPress install is not fun and requires constant - almost tiring - oversight. This isn't true. I've been running and managing 15+ WordPress websites for over 5 years now and not once run into any issues like you're describing, and I certainly haven't lost sleep or become 'tired' over it. Using a good tool like ManageWP (or InfiniteWP, or any of the others, take your pick) makes managing multip…
Your last paragraph is wrong. WordPress is a headache for people who keep their CMSes up to date. The speech about why Wordpress is a poor choice for a lot of projects has changed over the last decade, but it’s still true to say — possibly truer than ever. PHP is a lot better than it used to be, but not Wordpress-style PHP. There are great CMS alternatives that are also written in PHP and are better, secure, and set up so that they will be around for years.
Re: WordPress 5.0: A Gutenberg FAQ
#144For what Automattic want WordPress to be, WP 5 seems to be a sensible move. WP is a viable choice for the Squarespace and Wix crowd that want to build a website without knowing anything about how to design or code. These services are eating their (lucrative) lunch, and a move toward ease of building makes real sense.
Sadly, this isn't the reason WP is popular. People use it because it's the most popular CMS, because of the marketed belief that it's the easiest to use, and because there is a perceived belief that it's quick to develop features because "we'll just use a plugin for that". While there are many teams out there that do WP "right", I'd say they are in a small minority. Most WP sites I've used have been a total mess.
I've used a lot of content management systems and frameworks in the past, and while it's on a framework many refuse to use, I'd say the best open-source CMS available for user experience and extensibility is Umbraco. While the core community can be a bit reclusive to outsiders, and HQ eager to push profitable products, Umbraco is easy to use, easy to install, and has a rich ecosystem of plugins to allow developers to build stuff easily. I liken it a bit to the early Rails community in how it acts.
As far as WP is concerned, I feel that WP is too big to simply be a site builder to some, and a framework to others, making Gutenberg a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't really solve either problem. The best thing they could do is accept that WP developers are analogous to React developers or Rails developers in that they define themselves by their framework of choice, and to do that WordPress needs to expand into its own PHP framework. Gutenberg can be a part of that, but it would be a part of the framework, not the driving force behind page creation.
Disclaimer: A few years ago, I was making a tidy side income from porting WP sites to Umbraco, and if I weren't too busy I'd continue to do it because there is no shortage of pissed off clients with crappy WP sites that want a usable CMS.
Re: WordPress 5.0: A Gutenberg FAQ
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
My answer to this problem has been the plugin Wordfence. It's primary feature is a WAF whose rules update continuously and intercepts every request. Having worked at several agencies I've seen and inherited many hacked sites. I have never had a site be infected with a clean install using Wordfence. knocks on wood
Wow. Founder here. Thank you!
Well thank you. I'm a big fan of your newsletter as well :)
Re: WordPress 5.0: A Gutenberg FAQ
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apples and oranges. If you needed a comprehensive client accessible CMS then how did you replicate that side of things in Node etc? If you didn't need a CMS then I'm not sure why you were using Drupal/Wordpress in the first place. The only reason I can think to use them is if you want to hand off content editing to a non-developer.
I agree that I did not replicate the theme and plugin system of WordPress. But the beauty is that you probably don't have to. WordPress has to cater to all, which is probably the source of all the issues people face. But neither is my website a simple brochure site. Members create their own content, upload photos, enter their location on a map, enter available dates, have the ability to chat with other members. When…
You're making a completely different distinction to the one I was making.
I was saying "client-editable content" vs "not" and you seem to be saying "brochure site" vs "dynamic site".
Brochure sites sometimes need to be client editable. And sometimes complex, dynamic sites don't. It's an orthogonal point.