<story><title>How did WordPress win?</title><url>http://www.majordojo.com/2011/02/how-did-wordpress-win.php</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>michaelchisari</author><text>For as terrible as the internals of Wordpress are, the user-facing part of it all isn&apos;t bad.  So if you never have to hack the core, it&apos;s a solid product.  And since 99% of people using Wordpress like this won&apos;t touch the code, beyond maybe basic templating, then the ease of installation is really the biggest part of it&apos;s ubiquity.&lt;p&gt;There&apos;s something to be said for open source packages which work really well out-of-the-box for the vast majority of people who use it.&lt;p&gt;But oh, my lord, are the internals awful.</text></comment>
<story><title>How did WordPress win?</title><url>http://www.majordojo.com/2011/02/how-did-wordpress-win.php</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>cagenut</author><text>The core difference between the platforms was that wordpress was designed for any schmuck to follow a howto, while MT was designed to sell the &lt;i&gt;real&lt;/i&gt; product, professional services billable hours.   There were soooo many things about MT that stayed locked up in &quot;plugin packs&quot; or were completely undocumented that if you weren&apos;t paying a few (hundred)grand in proserv it was just plain not a usable product.&lt;p&gt;For the record, I was the enterprise customer clamoring for ldap support in Byrne&apos;s post, and I&apos;ve since worked for another high profile site built on MT.  Its a solid product if you bring a handful of good engineers in on top of it, its just got that &quot;you must be this tall&quot; barrier to entry that makes it an immediate loss for broad-consumer adoption.</text></comment>