<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Smackdown. WordPress loses for enterprise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nickgarner.co.uk/wordpress/smackdown-wordpress-loses-for-enterprise-1576.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nickgarner.co.uk/wordpress/smackdown-wordpress-loses-for-enterprise-1576.html</link>
	<description>SEO &#124; Online PR &#124; Marketing &#124; Social Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:55:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Mee</title>
		<link>http://www.nickgarner.co.uk/wordpress/smackdown-wordpress-loses-for-enterprise-1576.html/comment-page-1#comment-43008</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Mee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://?p=1576#comment-43008</guid>
		<description>Hey Nick! Interesting article, and some interesting points you raise.
As a former (paying!) blogger user, who adopted MT before WP became stable enough to use, I can&#039;t take MT seriously. I know a large public broadcaster who uses MT - but only because they&#039;re a Perl shop and don&#039;t use PHP. But they constantly fight implementation issues, are several versions behind, and exactly as you say - have a huge team testing updates and checks every time a vulnerability is raised.

Ultimately, the reach and low cost of WP will win out - see also Apache - and the slog of getting there will ease up. And of course, using SuperCache is the only real way to deploy WP - at which point you&#039;re effectively using the same architectural approach as MT.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Nick, and to everyone who&#039;s chipped in - particularly the insightful note from Dave.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Nick! Interesting article, and some interesting points you raise.<br />
As a former (paying!) blogger user, who adopted MT before WP became stable enough to use, I can&#8217;t take MT seriously. I know a large public broadcaster who uses MT &#8211; but only because they&#8217;re a Perl shop and don&#8217;t use PHP. But they constantly fight implementation issues, are several versions behind, and exactly as you say &#8211; have a huge team testing updates and checks every time a vulnerability is raised.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the reach and low cost of WP will win out &#8211; see also Apache &#8211; and the slog of getting there will ease up. And of course, using SuperCache is the only real way to deploy WP &#8211; at which point you&#8217;re effectively using the same architectural approach as MT.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Nick, and to everyone who&#8217;s chipped in &#8211; particularly the insightful note from Dave.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Garner</title>
		<link>http://www.nickgarner.co.uk/wordpress/smackdown-wordpress-loses-for-enterprise-1576.html/comment-page-1#comment-42646</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Garner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:39:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://?p=1576#comment-42646</guid>
		<description>You know Dave - I really hope so. I look at what I can achieve with WP in dev output relative to MT and its way ahead.  
Its just I get slammed by securty when I talk about WP. In fact a few months ago I mentioned Wp as a vehicle to run one of our sites on - they laughed at me and for about 3 weeks afterwards when my name was mentioned, it was followed by... yes the guy who suggested WP :-((((( 

Its a big business culture thing I suppose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know Dave &#8211; I really hope so. I look at what I can achieve with WP in dev output relative to MT and its way ahead.<br />
Its just I get slammed by securty when I talk about WP. In fact a few months ago I mentioned Wp as a vehicle to run one of our sites on &#8211; they laughed at me and for about 3 weeks afterwards when my name was mentioned, it was followed by&#8230; yes the guy who suggested WP <img src='http://www.nickgarner.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':-(' class='wp-smiley' /> (((( </p>
<p>Its a big business culture thing I suppose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Coveney</title>
		<link>http://www.nickgarner.co.uk/wordpress/smackdown-wordpress-loses-for-enterprise-1576.html/comment-page-1#comment-42495</link>
		<dc:creator>David Coveney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://?p=1576#comment-42495</guid>
		<description>Nick, whilst I agree to some extent with your points, I have to suggest that there&#039;s a few things worth considering:

1. The coming WP 3.0 addresses some of the MU complexity issues - it really does work.
2. It&#039;s possible to harden WP versions and installations adequately in order to protect the implementation.  You also have to consider the nature of the vulnerabilities - not all are critical to a given installation.
3. From within an enterprise, eg for Intranets, attacks on WP are very limited and there is less of a need to consider the four monthly upgrade cycle.
4. It&#039;s possible to back-port a lot of the fixes.  As our Enterprise client base grows we&#039;re looking at offering this as a service, but there&#039;s complexity in managing this that needs to be addressed but we feel we have answers.

What WP needs is a company with an Enterprise focus that can contribute the requirements of Enterprise into the system and/or maintain a fork that fits better.  We are that kind of company, but until recently there wasn&#039;t enough interest to justify the expenditure.  However, interest has improved dramatically since late 2009 and as a consequence we have plans that will help to make WP something that is far more attractive to the large companies both from an Extranet and an Intranet perspective.

2010 is, I feel, going to be the year where WP starts to hit the Enterprise sweet spot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nick, whilst I agree to some extent with your points, I have to suggest that there&#8217;s a few things worth considering:</p>
<p>1. The coming WP 3.0 addresses some of the MU complexity issues &#8211; it really does work.<br />
2. It&#8217;s possible to harden WP versions and installations adequately in order to protect the implementation.  You also have to consider the nature of the vulnerabilities &#8211; not all are critical to a given installation.<br />
3. From within an enterprise, eg for Intranets, attacks on WP are very limited and there is less of a need to consider the four monthly upgrade cycle.<br />
4. It&#8217;s possible to back-port a lot of the fixes.  As our Enterprise client base grows we&#8217;re looking at offering this as a service, but there&#8217;s complexity in managing this that needs to be addressed but we feel we have answers.</p>
<p>What WP needs is a company with an Enterprise focus that can contribute the requirements of Enterprise into the system and/or maintain a fork that fits better.  We are that kind of company, but until recently there wasn&#8217;t enough interest to justify the expenditure.  However, interest has improved dramatically since late 2009 and as a consequence we have plans that will help to make WP something that is far more attractive to the large companies both from an Extranet and an Intranet perspective.</p>
<p>2010 is, I feel, going to be the year where WP starts to hit the Enterprise sweet spot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl</title>
		<link>http://www.nickgarner.co.uk/wordpress/smackdown-wordpress-loses-for-enterprise-1576.html/comment-page-1#comment-42494</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:10:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://?p=1576#comment-42494</guid>
		<description>Hi Nick,

I remember speaking with you which must be over a year ago now and you mentioned all of the above.

I plan to take a look at MT over the next few weeks as more to do with learning what else is out there, but want to compare with wordpress.

I agree that I have found wordpress very hard to be scalable and a few of my bigger projects I have had to move from wordpress to custom sites.

I have a lot of blogs and I have yet to automate plugin updates and wordpress upgrades, therefore I have to login into every blog - time consuming and time wasted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Nick,</p>
<p>I remember speaking with you which must be over a year ago now and you mentioned all of the above.</p>
<p>I plan to take a look at MT over the next few weeks as more to do with learning what else is out there, but want to compare with wordpress.</p>
<p>I agree that I have found wordpress very hard to be scalable and a few of my bigger projects I have had to move from wordpress to custom sites.</p>
<p>I have a lot of blogs and I have yet to automate plugin updates and wordpress upgrades, therefore I have to login into every blog &#8211; time consuming and time wasted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
