On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Prem Kurian Philip <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Why is a static site considered a good idea in this time and age? If your > concern is that a CMS-managed site can be hacked while a static site can't > be - well, yes, it is more difficult to attack a pure static site. I believe static pages in *our case* would be a good idea because we can get around the problems of one person being the gatekeeper for all the changes/updates that need to be done. Also, it's also a case of not complicating things unless we really, really need it - It's not just security I'm talking about - Drupal will need a database, and somebody has to backup all that data separately. It has to be transferred off-server so that a disk failure won't take out all the old data. Ergo, considerable amount of admin time. As SK mentioned, it becomes a chore for any one person when he has a day job. Static pages are simple and get the job done - all the data is in the svn repo. And everybody who has the latest checkout will have all the data of the site. Any one of us can restore it. Also, there is also the issue of flexibility - using simple html pages and bunch of css files is so much easier than managing 'themes' and 'modules' and somesuch. > > However, please do bear in mind that a subversion server can be > compromised. After all haven't we have had the situation in multiple open > source projects where the code repository has been compromised? No repo/server can be completely secure, sure, but we're talking about hosting the repo on Google Code or GitHub. I think they both have *good enough* security not worry about that aspect. Vamsee. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, email [email protected] with "unsubscribe <password> <address>" in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
