Comment by PythonicAlpha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by PythonicAlpha | Hacker News Reader

The front page says:

    "NoSQL? Kirby Prefers NoDB!

    Kirby is file-based – No database involved. This means first class performance,
    version controllable content, simple backups and many other awesome sideeffects."

What other "awesome" sideeffects? I tried the link and found only a download page. I also scanned threw the documentation and found no further statements and no explanation.

Seams to me, that the claims are just made without any explanations or prove. Sad.

Edit:

The claims are nice, but many of those are rather thin. For example, content in a database is also version controllable. I see no substantial advantage here in content on the file system.

It is just marketing spin. "File-based CMS" just means an editor/authoring tool. FrontPage was a file-based CMS. Dreamweaver was a File-based CMS. Heck, Sublime Text can be used as a file-based CMS, if you are comfortable with WYSIWYG not being a requirement.

That is, what I wanted to point out.

I wouldnt say so, its cms that instead of database uses md files. But you can do very similar things like with cms that has regular db.

It looks like it doesn't store any data at all, it is completely stateless. You'd have to overlay state by e.g. pointing Kirby at a git repository. Likewise access control, review, etc.

Therefore, of course it's high-performing -- it doesn't do anything (much).

Awesome side effects like needing half your webroot writable by the webserver. Takes me back to the CGI days in the 90s.

Not necessarily, have a location that the user writes to that is readable by one other user who can write to the webroot (and has nologin, etc). Run a cron job as the other user every few minutes or something to sync things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com