[KronisLV]

I am very much tempted not to because it works under lower loads, could just put it on a faster server, but how could I pass up the chance to write my own CMS (well, a better one than the previous ones I've done)? That's like a rite of passage. But yes, the irony isn't lost on me, I just had to go for that title.

[stavros]

If you have to write your own CMS, make it compile to static files. I did that with Django, used Django-distill, and it's hands down the best static site generator I've ever used. My site never needs updates and never goes down under any amount of load.

[hipadev23]

“static files” are nothing more than no-TTL caching strategy with manual eviction.

[brirec]

You’re not wrong… but “static files” ultimately are infinitely less complex than any dynamic CMS, and require no effort or brain power to migrate between (even bottom-of-the-barrel) providers

[ksec]

I sort of not understand why we are not using static Files more often now.

In the old days we need CMS mostly because generating links and update to certain pages were expensive. Hard Disk were slow and memory were expensive. Now we have SSDs that eliminate 99.9999% of the problem.

[stavros]

OK.

[augusto-moura]

If you are using open source you can always support your own old versions ~joking but not really~

Of course security updates are very hard, but if an old version has some good community you have the option of forking or upstreaming the updates yourself

[type0]

> ~joking but not really~

For some languages and applications it can be trivial to backport the changes then trying to keep up with the new features. If it's tested and stable it will likely be more stable than a new version, I do this for some smaller programs and I'm not even a real programmer but more of a hobbyist