4 ms·

I think that it's good to be on retainer, but I didn't find that providing hosting was worth the effort. A few hundred dollars here and there was not enough. If

I think that it's good to be on retainer, but I didn't find that providing hosting was worth the effort. A few hundred dollars here and there was not enough. If clients needed technical assistance, then they could pay a retainer or an hourly rate. Example scenario to consider: if you're providing hosting, and the site gets hacked, and you're the webmaster, you have to clean it up without pay. If you manage a lot of sites, and they all get hacked because you put them on one server, then you get to clean up a lot of sites without pay. It's better to get paid hourly for those kinds of things.

ncouture 9y ago
What you say is true; I learned, and am still reminded of it, the hard way from time to time. But it's nothing more than a problem waiting to be solved. In my case I'm solving this problem by using static sites and managed web hosting. Put simplicity where simplicity is due and segregate the more complex requirements. Static sites are going a very long way now, and a lot can be done with JavaScript on the client-side with modern browsers. In many cases no back-end services are needed, but when they are, it can make a lot of sense to segregate them in a way they can power multiple sites with the same functionality requirements. It's really up to the needs you have but in the end I feel it can really be worth it. Heck, latest web standards let us componentize elements, we might all be better off with a global database that contains all of them in JSON or YAML format which we can load/dump from and that contains some kind of ACL (ala Firebase can do that). Have a good day.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  Static sites are different. That sounds like a much better model for hosting. It doesn't matter if the servers get destroyed if there is little to clean up.
jolmg 9y ago
Well, it wouldn't be without pay as you'd be paid for the hosting. If they all get hacked, that'd be on you for not taking preventive measures for it, right? The positive point is that it's easier to avoid being hacked than it is to fix it after the fact. Hosting it would be a passive income, which should typically be preferred, isn't it?
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  It's impossible to entirely prevent hacking. I'm sure that there are people who have worked out a good hosting model, but I did not find it to be worth the time.

ncouture 9y ago

What you say is true; I learned, and am still reminded of it, the hard way from time to time. But it's nothing more than a problem waiting to be solved. In my case I'm solving this problem by using static sites and managed web hosting. Put simplicity where simplicity is due and segregate the more complex requirements. Static sites are going a very long way now, and a lot can be done with JavaScript on the client-side with modern browsers. In many cases no back-end services are needed, but when they are, it can make a lot of sense to segregate them in a way they can power multiple sites with the same functionality requirements. It's really up to the needs you have but in the end I feel it can really be worth it. Heck, latest web standards let us componentize elements, we might all be better off with a global database that contains all of them in JSON or YAML format which we can load/dump from and that contains some kind of ACL (ala Firebase can do that). Have a good day.

JoshMnem 9y ago
Static sites are different. That sounds like a much better model for hosting. It doesn't matter if the servers get destroyed if there is little to clean up.

jolmg 9y ago

Well, it wouldn't be without pay as you'd be paid for the hosting. If they all get hacked, that'd be on you for not taking preventive measures for it, right? The positive point is that it's easier to avoid being hacked than it is to fix it after the fact. Hosting it would be a passive income, which should typically be preferred, isn't it?

JoshMnem 9y ago
It's impossible to entirely prevent hacking. I'm sure that there are people who have worked out a good hosting model, but I did not find it to be worth the time.