OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: Jed, > > A follow-up question: >
Since you were forced to roll up your sleeves and get dirty wrestling > with the unwieldiness of using WORD PRESS to manage the content of the > huge LENR database . . . This is a tiny database. Only 3820 items. I used to deal with databases of up to ~250,000 items back when computers microcomputer programming languages could only address 64 KB records per file. That was complicated! This is a piece of cake. , this begs the question: At what point, in your > opinion, does the size of the content one manages become a serious > management issue insofar as WORD PRESS is concerned. I have not bumped against the limits yet. I have noticed that it gets slow at times but that's a problem with ISP. Everything is slow. Displaying the screens gets slow. Downloading large papers is slow. If I could figure out how to use the indexes properly the Special Collections screens might display a little faster: http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=691 I need to index the Publisher column. So far no joy. I may live with it. I bring this up because it's my understanding that a lot of organizations > are using WORD PRESS. And the numbers are growing. Some > of these outfits are pretty big. I assume they must, in turn, manage > huge databases. The databases at places like Amazon.com are enormous but they only display a little at a time for each person reading the site. Amazon has wonderful database driver which they developed for their own use. They rent it out to others. They let small users have it for free. http://aws.amazon.com/rds/ If I could have figured out how to interface to it, I would have used it instead of MySQL. WordPress itself seems inefficient to me. It is not the database aspect of it. The MySQL files for WordPress are small, and probably fit into RAM. The auto-generated code seems unwieldy. There are petabytes of data flying around the world every day. A large fraction of them must be WordPress web pages asking DNS servers where stuff is that *right there on the disk*! They flap wasting bandwidth in other ways, too. Places like the Washington Post have cleaner HTML. They are paying for it. I do not know if they use WordPress. I think I was wrong about the White House. Sources say they use Drupal, not WordPress. I used to know a guy who developed Intel CPU chips. This was before the Internet exploded. He said: "We are in a race with Microsoft. We make the CPUs faster and faster so that Microsoft can bog them down with more and more useless code." Nowadays we make the Internet ever faster so that inept programmers can waste bandwidth. > What, in your opinion, probably makes WORD PRESS continue to be such > an attractive option, particularly if most users are forced to do most > of their editing on-line . . . 1. It is free. There are many better alternatives but they costs money. Such as: http://www.360psg.com/content/pages/website-management-software 2. People get used to anything. That is why fossil fuel is so popular. People do not know there are viable alternatives. It is the devil you know. - Jed
