Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Also, it seems a lot of the comparisons to WordPress are hardly accurate. Most notably is the 'Security' area where it asserts that

> There are a million plugins available that extend your site’s functionality, but each plugin increases your security risk and your maintenance overhead.

but with LocomotiveCMS

> Since LocomotiveCMS is built on Ruby on Rails, you get tons of power without having to rely on a bunch of plugins that can compromise the security of your site.

So, what, is that saying that LocomotiveCMS doesn't have a plugin architecture for porting in additional functionality? Or is it just hubris to the point of saying all extensions are naturally more secure? Or that users would never need to install plugins, because LocoCMS has lots of features already? 'cuz, y'know, WordPress has lots of features too.


> [In WordPress, to] make many site changes, you have to download a copy of the database and the entire content folder back to your local installation.

Nope. That's just factually wrong.

> [In WordPress] some assets are stored in a database, and others are in templates or additional places.

... no? Content and configuration is stored in the database, templates and assets are in files. Really wondering wtf they're talking about here.

> And forget about trying to make those custom types relate to each other without significant code slinging.

Nope. Easy plugin. No code slinging required. https://wordpress.org/plugins/posts-to-posts/

> While WordPress has multi-site capability, you often run into compatibility issues that can hamstring the production of your sites.

Really? Like ... what? The only things I've ever seen break in multisite was when the developer was doing things incorrectly, trying to hack one thing into another without understanding the system they were working in.

> If you've worked with WordPress, you already know what we're talking about.

I've worked with WordPress for six plus years now, and have no idea what you're talking about.

I've worked with Wordpress for the last 7 years myself, and some of these points aren't too far off the mark. I'm of the belief that I shouldn't have to install a million plugins for stuff that should be built in, and I'm sick of the global loop. On the other hand the module system and Laravel integration I've built at work makes Wordpress rather nice to use for heavy development; clients can build new pages from scratch with all the structure content they want, and have the design never break and always match the rest of the page. I love ACF ;)

But who gets to decide what "should be" built in? Chrome (the browser) for example came out with pretty much nothing but browsing at first, while its competitors - Firefox and Opera, notably - were only adding features (iirc Opera had things like email, bittorrent and IRC clients built in at the time). This left the choice of what a user would like in his browser to that user himself.

I'm sure that most Wordpress installations have no extra plugins at all - and are none the worse off for it.

But out of curiosity - what plugins do you believe should be part of the default WP package?

Opera has always been a little different (I personally like it), but Firefox was not getting tons of extra features when Chrome launched (why would Mozilla do that when they had such a healthy plugin market).

As far as I see it, Chrome got the bulk of its market share through speed and advertising/bundling (advertised on Google, bundled with Flash, etc...).

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact