<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wordpress == Chuck Norris, Movable Type == Nancy Kerrigan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://vnovember.com/2008/01/29/wordpress-chuck-norris-movable-type-nancy-kerrigan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://vnovember.com/2008/01/29/wordpress-chuck-norris-movable-type-nancy-kerrigan/</link>
	<description>Tech, Politics, Humor, Movies, and sarcastically bastardish bumblings from a webling</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chad Everett</title>
		<link>http://vnovember.com/2008/01/29/wordpress-chuck-norris-movable-type-nancy-kerrigan/#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator>Chad Everett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timmerstidbits.com/2008/01/29/wordpress-chuck-norris-movable-type-nancy-kerrigan/#comment-76</guid>
		<description>There is no doubt that the ease of installing updates will be won by Wordpress any day.  There are some movements afoot to make it easier to install theme "packs" in MT, but I suspect even then, it will still never be as easily done as Wordpress, simply because MT is generally run as a static system, not a dynamic one.

Which is really the other major difference - and one you point out by your inclusion of the WP-Cache plugin.  It's interesting to see how many WP sites are Dugg (insert site of choice here) and how easily they go down, but a static site, such as MT - though it is by no means the only one - won't, simply because it doesn't have to worry about the db connection issues.

As to usage, I'd have to disagree.  I think that Wordpress is actually a much easier system for a novice to use, and your illustration of plugins makes that point abundantly clear.  Drop it in and gain functionality.  In MT, you can add plugins, but most features added in Wordpress by way of a plugin are added in MT simply by changing template tags.  Which you find easier just depends on your mindset.

In any case - an interesting analysis.  Thanks.  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no doubt that the ease of installing updates will be won by Wordpress any day.  There are some movements afoot to make it easier to install theme &#8220;packs&#8221; in MT, but I suspect even then, it will still never be as easily done as Wordpress, simply because MT is generally run as a static system, not a dynamic one.</p>
<p>Which is really the other major difference - and one you point out by your inclusion of the WP-Cache plugin.  It&#8217;s interesting to see how many WP sites are Dugg (insert site of choice here) and how easily they go down, but a static site, such as MT - though it is by no means the only one - won&#8217;t, simply because it doesn&#8217;t have to worry about the db connection issues.</p>
<p>As to usage, I&#8217;d have to disagree.  I think that Wordpress is actually a much easier system for a novice to use, and your illustration of plugins makes that point abundantly clear.  Drop it in and gain functionality.  In MT, you can add plugins, but most features added in Wordpress by way of a plugin are added in MT simply by changing template tags.  Which you find easier just depends on your mindset.</p>
<p>In any case - an interesting analysis.  Thanks.  <img src='http://vnovember.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
