Why Hugo?
The decision to switch from WordPress to a static website engine like Hugo was easy.
- Once, my provider complained about the version of PHP and wanted to charge me extra for running an older PHP version.
- Furthermore, a modern and beautiful WordPress site requires a lot of time.
- Another time, the My SQL database had problems, and I lost my settings and content.
- During the years, I got a lot of attack attempts from all over the world. E.g., the Kali Linux distribution contains a free, open-source vulnerability scanner for WordPress (wpscan).
- At least run such a system; you need more diligence on the European GDPR.
In conclusion, you need a lot of time for administration and extra knowledge to run WordPress. I grew up as a software developer developing web-based information systems and found running WordPress too complicated for my use cases.
Hugo lets me concentrate on the essentials. Like now, I can quickly write something in Markdown. You can store the text file and all modifications in a Source Repository like GitHub. The access times to my content have improved considerably.
Intention
The CO2 emissions of a static website seem many times lower. It may be a small step to save the planet, but if it suits your business or use cases, it can help.
Microsoft Copilot
Disclaimer: The following section is entirely AI-generated.
USE CASE: demonstrate and compare modern AI Assistants.
Question
Please compare the co2 food print static website to wordpress
Microsoft Copilot Answer
The carbon footprint of a website depends on various factors, including the design, the number of page views, and the efficiency of the underlying technology.
An average website produces 4.61 grams of CO2 for every page view¹. For websites that have an average of 10,000 page views per month, that makes 553 kilograms of CO2 per year¹. According to the Website Carbon Calculator, the average web page they test produces approximately 0.5 grams of CO2 per pageview². That translates to 60 kg of CO2 per year for a website with 10,000 monthly pageviews².
Static websites generally have a lower carbon footprint compared to dynamic websites like those powered by WordPress. This is because static websites require less server processing power and thus consume less energy. However, the exact difference in CO2 footprint between a static website and a WordPress website would depend on various factors, including the specific design and functionality of the sites, the number of visitors, and the efficiency of the servers hosting the sites.
There are ways for programmers and owners to reduce the carbon footprint of their websites. The Website Carbon Calculator is one tool that can estimate the CO2 emissions of a website and provide tips on how they could be reduced¹.
It’s important to note that all online activities, including website browsing, contribute to CO2 emissions. Therefore, efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of websites can contribute to overall environmental sustainability.
Quelle: Unterhaltung mit Bing, 1.1.2024
(1) What’s the Carbon Footprint of Your Website? - RESET. https://en.reset.org/whats-carbon-footprint-your-website/.
(2) The carbon footprint of your website and how to reduce it. https://yoast.com/carbon-footprint-of-website/.
(3) What’s the carbon footprint of … the internet? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/12/carbon-footprint-internet.