I'm not the guru, but what's different in this from how Wordpress now automatically caches the rendered PHP file as a static HTML file, which is served until the content is changed? I agree with the later threads that this is a "way" to accomplish the end goal -- having your server up and responsive -- but between static HTML and cached HTML derived from PHP, is there an incredibly large difference under reasonable (not slashdotted) server loads?
My dislike for MT is not how it serves pages. Obviously static files are less of a load on the server and can be served faster. My issue is not with the end-user experience; it is how annoying it is to the developer and blogger. Developing a custom skin was a nightmare, having to republish every single time I wanted to test something
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
