3 ms·
I wonder how easily people bind themselves to a certain provider. Since the appereance of Medium I waited for the day they try to monetize it and people would l
by cryptos 8y ago
I wonder how easily people bind themselves to a certain provider. Since the appereance of Medium I waited for the day they try to monetize it and people would leaving for better options. The possibility to move away should probably considered before starting to use such a service.
My own website is based on Hugo. While the usage (especially the template syntax) is not exactly a joy to use, it works fine and fast for years now. The only thing I need is some web space to drop static files, so it would be really easy to move to another provider. However I wouldn't recommend Hugo to non-technical writers, since the configuration and template syntax would scare them probably away.
The world needs more "static CMS" software (instead of just "static site generators")!
- StavrosK 8y agoI evaluated Hugo and went with Lektor for the reasons you mention. I haven't regretted it, Lektor is much more sane.
- cryptos 8y agoWhile Lektor doesn't look bad, I doubt it would be attractive for non-technical persons. I'm thinking of something more like Ghost, WordPress (with less features), but with static files as output.
- StavrosK 8y agoLektor includes a very nice publishing interface. Only deployment is "hard", in that it needs you to run a command, AFAIK.
- johnonolan 8y agoThis is possible with Ghost :) it functions as a headless CMS and can be used with essentially any static site generator which can pull content from an API, eg. Gatsby -- https://docs.ghost.org/api/gatsby/ https://docs.ghost.org/api/gatsby/ We'll be sharing more about this on Weds in a bigger blog post - it's a fairly recent addition