<?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: WordPress 2.61 released&#8230; WordPress MU 2.6.1 on its way?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/</link>
	<description>WordPress, Multisite &#38; BuddyPress plugins, themes, news and reviews and special offers from the team at WPMU.org</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 19:46:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard X. Thripp</title>
		<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/#comment-320</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard X. Thripp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:18:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wpmu.org/?p=168#comment-320</guid>
		<description>@James: On the front end, but not on the back end unfortunately. WP-Cache&#039;s gzipping isn&#039;t useful because it does it on every page load which uses too much CPU power; WP Super Cache is what I use because it caches each gzipped page. It&#039;s even faster than WP-Cache, but anything dynamic like hit counters (unless JavaScript), popular posts, etc. won&#039;t be dynamic because it serves static HTML. The cache is invalidated / updated for new posts and comments, and every hour (configurable), and it&#039;s WP-Cache only on the front-end for logged-in users, which is slightly slower but allows some dynamic content (like the Site Admin link; you don&#039;t want that appearing to the general public, even if it goes nowhere).

Even WP Super Cache doesn&#039;t touch CSS, JS, or the admin pages, though.

The admin pages are too slow... I&#039;m making a simple write post panel that appears at the top of the home page of http://daytonastate.org blogs when users are logged in. Just title, body, tags, and category fields, and post or save as draft, with no fancy JavaScript or autosave to keep things quick.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@James: On the front end, but not on the back end unfortunately. WP-Cache&#8217;s gzipping isn&#8217;t useful because it does it on every page load which uses too much CPU power; WP Super Cache is what I use because it caches each gzipped page. It&#8217;s even faster than WP-Cache, but anything dynamic like hit counters (unless JavaScript), popular posts, etc. won&#8217;t be dynamic because it serves static HTML. The cache is invalidated / updated for new posts and comments, and every hour (configurable), and it&#8217;s WP-Cache only on the front-end for logged-in users, which is slightly slower but allows some dynamic content (like the Site Admin link; you don&#8217;t want that appearing to the general public, even if it goes nowhere).</p>
<p>Even WP Super Cache doesn&#8217;t touch CSS, JS, or the admin pages, though.</p>
<p>The admin pages are too slow&#8230; I&#8217;m making a simple write post panel that appears at the top of the home page of <a href="http://daytonastate.org" rel="nofollow">http://daytonastate.org</a> blogs when users are logged in. Just title, body, tags, and category fields, and post or save as draft, with no fancy JavaScript or autosave to keep things quick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/#comment-319</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wpmu.org/?p=168#comment-319</guid>
		<description>Turbo is purely a personal thing - I doubt it&#039;ll do much for our servers but I&#039;m starting to find it intolerable to be using backends without it!

Can&#039;t comment much on http expire headers / gzip although wp-cache can do some of that, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Turbo is purely a personal thing &#8211; I doubt it&#8217;ll do much for our servers but I&#8217;m starting to find it intolerable to be using backends without it!</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t comment much on http expire headers / gzip although wp-cache can do some of that, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard X. Thripp</title>
		<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/#comment-318</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard X. Thripp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wpmu.org/?p=168#comment-318</guid>
		<description>Merging and gzipping the JavaScript and CSS, and setting far-future HTTP expires headers, would be better than Turbo. The admin pages are too heavy now. I don&#039;t think you can make those changes with a plugin unfortunately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Merging and gzipping the JavaScript and CSS, and setting far-future HTTP expires headers, would be better than Turbo. The admin pages are too heavy now. I don&#8217;t think you can make those changes with a plugin unfortunately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Milward</title>
		<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/#comment-316</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Milward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:34:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wpmu.org/?p=168#comment-316</guid>
		<description>James; Do you think &#039;Turbo&#039; would save you much bandwidth?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James; Do you think &#8216;Turbo&#8217; would save you much bandwidth?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/#comment-269</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wpmu.org/?p=168#comment-269</guid>
		<description>Yep, we&#039;re kinda tempted to wait for 2.7 too... 1.5.1 is really solid.

But just &#039;Turbo&#039; on its own might persuade me to go for 2.6.1 when it comes out!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep, we&#8217;re kinda tempted to wait for 2.7 too&#8230; 1.5.1 is really solid.</p>
<p>But just &#8216;Turbo&#8217; on its own might persuade me to go for 2.6.1 when it comes out!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard X. Thripp</title>
		<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/#comment-268</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard X. Thripp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:51:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wpmu.org/?p=168#comment-268</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a &quot;wait and see Wanda&quot; too. For http://thripp.com I&#039;m planning on jumping from 1.5.1 (WP 2.5.1 equiv.) to WPMU 2.7 when it&#039;s released. It&#039;s easier that way, and I&#039;ll try to change my hacks to the core to plugins in the interim.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a &#8220;wait and see Wanda&#8221; too. For <a href="http://thripp.com" rel="nofollow">http://thripp.com</a> I&#8217;m planning on jumping from 1.5.1 (WP 2.5.1 equiv.) to WPMU 2.7 when it&#8217;s released. It&#8217;s easier that way, and I&#8217;ll try to change my hacks to the core to plugins in the interim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mercime</title>
		<link>http://wpmu.org/wordpress-261-released-wordpress-mu-261/#comment-226</link>
		<dc:creator>mercime</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wpmu.org/?p=168#comment-226</guid>
		<description>wait and see Wanda. As you said, if it ‘aint broke, then don’t try to fix it!
Cheers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wait and see Wanda. As you said, if it ‘aint broke, then don’t try to fix it!<br />
Cheers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

