Contentful + Jekyll + Netlify for me.
Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
41–50 of 74 posts
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#42Some good answers here.
Interestingly (for me), I've started going back to building more or less static sites for clients. I used Wordpress for a long time, but have increasingly found none of them want to blog, and few of them update either the site (or Wordpress, which can end up a security nightmare).
Often when it came to updating pages, they would call or email and say "can you do XXX", to which I'd reply "I can, but so can you". 90% of the time they're more than happy to pay me to update a page in Wordpress, which I could have done just as easily / quickly in a static site.
Long and short, the overhead of building a custom theme and setting up Wordpress isn't worth it for most clients, and even less me in a cost/time for the money way.
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#43Las time I used grav for something that does not have to be client friendly. It still felt a bit immature though. (the pretty flat-file markdown quickly gets gobbled up in the YAML headers and than they can only be edited through the admin interface)
Lately the admin plugin has an Advanced view that exposes the full yaml file in a form...
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#44I went from Wordpress -> Jekyll -> Hugo.
I love Hugo because it's a single binary, it's fast as hell when generating a static site, and it's easy to understand (and got great docs).
After I generate a static site, it's hosted on S3 (with a Cloudflare caching layer). The whole thing costs me pennies a month.
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#45This 57% sounds horribly wrong. They don't really explain how they come to this conclusion here: https://w3techs.com/technologies
My gut feeling is that 57% is a huge number if you assume that they don't use a CMS. I don't think that's manageable by the average owner with static site generators. None of my clients would be able to update their site with GIT + text editors. It's more likely that there's some kind of backend system that the survey was unable to identify.
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#46A single file named `index.php` that loads a bunch of text files and spits out what looks vaguely like a blog. It's a total mess. Business logic and HTML snippets scattered everywhere. Layers of caching to make the whole thing load in less than 0.03 seconds on cheap shared hosting. I'm sure I do a much better job for paying clients, but somehow never get around to fixing the decade-old garbage that runs my own site.…
Could still be if file_exist then read file despite where or what file , it's the 2nd most common security hole I have seen behind sql injection.
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#47At the moment, I use Caddy's built-in Markdown and template features [1], and simply rsync a bunch of markdown files to my server. It's basic, and certainly not as performant as hosting out static files, but it works well enough for my low-traffic site.
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#48vi, zopfli, gimp, optipng, jpegtran, rsync over ssh
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#49I use middlemanapp.com and deploy to s3 with cloudfront and then use lambda/apigateway for the 2 backend operations I need.
I would love to learn more about the lambda/apigateway part, I too need two backend operations on an otherwise static site, mailchimp signup and contact form submission. I am new to AWS, but I am pretty sure lambda could handle this, do you have suggestions on where I could learn more about setting something like this up?
Re: Ask HN: Most Sites Don't Use a CMS Like Wordpress – What Non-CMS Do You Use?
#50This 57% sounds horribly wrong. They don't really explain how they come to this conclusion here: https://w3techs.com/technologies My gut feeling is that 57% is a huge number if you assume that they don't use a CMS. I don't think that's manageable by the average owner with static site generators. None of my clients would be able to update their site with GIT + text editors. It's more likely that there's some kind of b…
This is kind of what got me. I feel like the majority of people wouldn't be savvy enough to do a site without a CMS as the setup is a little involved, or at least more involved than the simplicity of going to Wordpress.com and starting a site. So I don't know if I'm just missing something major here, or if the data is off.