6 ms·

It's amusing to me how programmers look back with disdain at web development in the 90s and how "you just uploaded files to a FTP server" and now we've circled

by meritt 7y ago

It's amusing to me how programmers look back with disdain at web development in the 90s and how "you just uploaded files to a FTP server" and now we've circled back to the same thing, just with a whole lot more plumbing in the middle.

WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
But it's AWS-branded plumbing now!
- znpy 7y ago
  it's in the cloud!
awb 7y ago
For me, Netlify is the right mix (I'm not affiliated with them). It has the 90s ease of use with modern tools and performance out of the box. It's simple to upload files or sync a repo and it it's free. I'm not sure why anyone would host a static website on the AWS stack.
- xienze 7y ago
  > I'm not sure why anyone would host a static website on the AWS stack. Well, I do that, so I guess I'll chime in. First and foremost is the idea of not tying your site's build process and hosting to a company that could go under. Yes, Amazon could, but if I had to bet Netlify will either cease to exist, be bought out, have its free offering discontinued/changed/etc. long before that. Second is that sometimes your site's build process is more complicated than what Netlify provides. For example, my site is a static Hugo site, which Netlify supports, but there's one crucial step in the build process where I turn my "resume.html" page into "resume.pdf" -- I have to run a Docker image that starts headless Chrome in order to render the PDF properly. As far as I can tell, that can't be rigged up in Netlify. Finally, I was able to learn a lot about AWS by hosting my site this way -- setting up a Lambda to listen for GitHub commits, using the AWS API to launch an EC2 instance to build my site, how to configure S3 and CloudFront to serve up content properly, etc. And at the end of the day I get a site that I have complete control over and is approximately free to run.
  - mprev 7y ago
    Who is downvoting this? It seems to be a polite answer to the question asked.
    - meritt 7y ago
      I didn't vote on the comment but it came across to me as emblematic of what I feel is "wrong" with technology trends over the past decade. Where instead of solving business problems it's mostly building tools on top of tools or reinventing the wheel in the latest language/ecosystem. Programmers rarely produce anything of value anymore, but instead parade around their mastery of an increasingly complex toolchain that delivers the same end result.
  - JeanSebTr 7y ago
    For the first point, I'd say it's best to save the setup time by using a service like Netlify and keep that for if/when they shut down. For the PDF, there's probably some service that could be used to wire that quick. But I agree that can be the cut-off point where it might be simpler for some to use docker.
  - ilovenetlify 7y ago
    You could use something like LaTeX to create your PDFs on Netlify during the build process. e.g. https://github.com/frangio/netlify-latex https://github.com/frangio/netlify-latex
    - xienze 7y ago
      It’s a page with some pretty fancy styling, a lot of it shared with the regular pages of my website. So it would be a ton of effort to port it to LaTeX.
      - ilovenetlify 7y ago
        You can install and run just about any binary: LaTeX being an example of a binary that generates PDFs. Just curious: what do you use to generate your PDFs?
- wexxy 7y ago
  Well... technically netlify is AWS behind the scenes isn't it?
  - endorphone 7y ago
    Does it matter? To people at our distance from it the process is a magical one where a git repo becomes a website. What technology stack they use, on which services, etc, is an abstraction that isn't particularly relevant to us.
    - bathtub365 7y ago
      Until it breaks. Then you are either completely stuck, or trying to untangle the thick, multilayer abstraction hosting your "static" website.
      - endorphone 7y ago
        If it broke it would take me all of minutes to have it hosted elsewhere. There is essentially zero lock-in with the service, even if you're using some of more complicated build steps.
- ilovenetlify 7y ago
  Yup. Netlify have nailed it.
  - sintaxi 7y ago
    It's sad how Netlify feels the need to shill their service when others are launching their product - like you have done with this account.
    - tomcam 7y ago
      How do you know?
    - ilovenetlify 7y ago
      I don’t work for or have any relationship with Netlify. I do think their service is wonderful.
      - touristtam 7y ago
        To the point that your handle on HN is your proclaimed love for the company? That's weird for an account less than 24 hour old.
        ilovenetlify 7y ago
        It‘a not weird. It’s just a username.
  - zelly 7y ago
    "growth hacking"
- philistine 7y ago
  I’ll give you my answer: I optimized for the lowest cost for a solution I could forget about. And not any suspicious free option like Github pages that might go away next year. True lowest cost hosting for a static website. AWS was the cheapest for me.
animalgonzales 7y ago
and buckets of cash for amazon...
daxfohl 7y ago
And there seems to be a rash of "whoa I stumbled on my old site's url at {90's hosting provider} and it is still up and running after all these years" comments lately. (And loads instantaneously with no UI framework).
- Frost1x 7y ago
  Tech suffers significantly from memory loss. To be fair, when you dive deep into complexity, it's easy to get lost in the weeds. The trick is to remember what you're doing and why you're doing it so you don't lose sight of goals while chopping through the complexity jungle.
rolltiide 7y ago
that is comical but doing what is described in this post in the 90s would have required load-balanced tower PCs strategically located all around the world, with another few computers acting as a load balancer, all maintaining copies of the website and cached server responses, and an expensive SSL certificate we get all that for free now or 50 cents a month, just for static websites there is almost no comparison, except for acknowledging that the plumbing sucks, all of which you can make better if you want.
saagarjha 7y ago
> programmers look back with disdain at web development in the 90s and how "you just uploaded files to a FTP server" Since when? I thought most people liked the simplicity and low barrier to entry…
zeroxfe 7y ago
It's amusing how quickly people forget how bad FTP was -- complex connection setup made it difficult to proxy, lack of encryption made it easy to sniff, managing FTP accounts was really hard without sophisticated auditing and management tools. SSH/SFTP helped a lot on the security front, but even for small companies, it's way easier to use cloud buckets than FTP.
zelly 7y ago
Yes but this time instead of FTP...it's a git remote! Progress!

by meritt 7y ago

WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago

But it's AWS-branded plumbing now!

znpy 7y ago
it's in the cloud!

awb 7y ago

For me, Netlify is the right mix (I'm not affiliated with them). It has the 90s ease of use with modern tools and performance out of the box. It's simple to upload files or sync a repo and it it's free. I'm not sure why anyone would host a static website on the AWS stack.

xienze 7y ago
> I'm not sure why anyone would host a static website on the AWS stack. Well, I do that, so I guess I'll chime in. First and foremost is the idea of not tying your site's build process and hosting to a company that could go under. Yes, Amazon could, but if I had to bet Netlify will either cease to exist, be bought out, have its free offering discontinued/changed/etc. long before that. Second is that sometimes your site's build process is more complicated than what Netlify provides. For example, my site is a static Hugo site, which Netlify supports, but there's one crucial step in the build process where I turn my "resume.html" page into "resume.pdf" -- I have to run a Docker image that starts headless Chrome in order to render the PDF properly. As far as I can tell, that can't be rigged up in Netlify. Finally, I was able to learn a lot about AWS by hosting my site this way -- setting up a Lambda to listen for GitHub commits, using the AWS API to launch an EC2 instance to build my site, how to configure S3 and CloudFront to serve up content properly, etc. And at the end of the day I get a site that I have complete control over and is approximately free to run.
- mprev 7y ago
  Who is downvoting this? It seems to be a polite answer to the question asked.
  - meritt 7y ago
    I didn't vote on the comment but it came across to me as emblematic of what I feel is "wrong" with technology trends over the past decade. Where instead of solving business problems it's mostly building tools on top of tools or reinventing the wheel in the latest language/ecosystem. Programmers rarely produce anything of value anymore, but instead parade around their mastery of an increasingly complex toolchain that delivers the same end result.
- JeanSebTr 7y ago
  For the first point, I'd say it's best to save the setup time by using a service like Netlify and keep that for if/when they shut down. For the PDF, there's probably some service that could be used to wire that quick. But I agree that can be the cut-off point where it might be simpler for some to use docker.
- ilovenetlify 7y ago
  You could use something like LaTeX to create your PDFs on Netlify during the build process. e.g. https://github.com/frangio/netlify-latex https://github.com/frangio/netlify-latex
  - xienze 7y ago
    It’s a page with some pretty fancy styling, a lot of it shared with the regular pages of my website. So it would be a ton of effort to port it to LaTeX.
    - ilovenetlify 7y ago
      You can install and run just about any binary: LaTeX being an example of a binary that generates PDFs. Just curious: what do you use to generate your PDFs?
wexxy 7y ago
Well... technically netlify is AWS behind the scenes isn't it?
- endorphone 7y ago
  Does it matter? To people at our distance from it the process is a magical one where a git repo becomes a website. What technology stack they use, on which services, etc, is an abstraction that isn't particularly relevant to us.
  - bathtub365 7y ago
    Until it breaks. Then you are either completely stuck, or trying to untangle the thick, multilayer abstraction hosting your "static" website.
    - endorphone 7y ago
      If it broke it would take me all of minutes to have it hosted elsewhere. There is essentially zero lock-in with the service, even if you're using some of more complicated build steps.
ilovenetlify 7y ago
Yup. Netlify have nailed it.
- sintaxi 7y ago
  It's sad how Netlify feels the need to shill their service when others are launching their product - like you have done with this account.
  - tomcam 7y ago
    How do you know?
  - ilovenetlify 7y ago
    I don’t work for or have any relationship with Netlify. I do think their service is wonderful.
    - touristtam 7y ago
      To the point that your handle on HN is your proclaimed love for the company? That's weird for an account less than 24 hour old.
      - ilovenetlify 7y ago
        It‘a not weird. It’s just a username.
- zelly 7y ago
  "growth hacking"
philistine 7y ago
I’ll give you my answer: I optimized for the lowest cost for a solution I could forget about. And not any suspicious free option like Github pages that might go away next year. True lowest cost hosting for a static website. AWS was the cheapest for me.

animalgonzales 7y ago

and buckets of cash for amazon...

daxfohl 7y ago

And there seems to be a rash of "whoa I stumbled on my old site's url at {90's hosting provider} and it is still up and running after all these years" comments lately. (And loads instantaneously with no UI framework).

Frost1x 7y ago
Tech suffers significantly from memory loss. To be fair, when you dive deep into complexity, it's easy to get lost in the weeds. The trick is to remember what you're doing and why you're doing it so you don't lose sight of goals while chopping through the complexity jungle.

rolltiide 7y ago

that is comical but doing what is described in this post in the 90s would have required load-balanced tower PCs strategically located all around the world, with another few computers acting as a load balancer, all maintaining copies of the website and cached server responses, and an expensive SSL certificate we get all that for free now or 50 cents a month, just for static websites there is almost no comparison, except for acknowledging that the plumbing sucks, all of which you can make better if you want.

saagarjha 7y ago

> programmers look back with disdain at web development in the 90s and how "you just uploaded files to a FTP server" Since when? I thought most people liked the simplicity and low barrier to entry…

zeroxfe 7y ago

It's amusing how quickly people forget how bad FTP was -- complex connection setup made it difficult to proxy, lack of encryption made it easy to sniff, managing FTP accounts was really hard without sophisticated auditing and management tools. SSH/SFTP helped a lot on the security front, but even for small companies, it's way easier to use cloud buckets than FTP.

zelly 7y ago

Yes but this time instead of FTP...it's a git remote! Progress!