4 ms·

Netlify simply adds an abstraction layer over a task which I don't want to be performed __AT_ALL__. I don't care if I'm doing it myself or someone else is on a

Netlify simply adds an abstraction layer over a task which I don't want to be performed __AT_ALL__. I don't care if I'm doing it myself or someone else is on a server somewhere on my behalf. It is utterly stupid to have all that to serve a static file.

corobo 6y ago
So write HTML and push that directly to your webserver.. what do you want from the world haha Forgive me for suggesting the first thing that popped into mind, could you run the generator script locally and also push the /public dir which your server then serves directly?
- axegon_ 6y ago
  > So write HTML and push that directly to your webserver. A much better option. Still have to deal with the de-facto boilerplate of every html file: head, body, header, footer. Which is why I built something that does it in the browser for me. > Forgive me for suggesting the first thing that popped into mind, could you run the generator script locally and also push the /public dir which your server then serves directly? Same as CI - adds an extra step to the process. But as I said, services like Netlify come and go and the news might slip by you and catch you off guard. If I had to go down that road, I have ~10 raspberry pi's 6 of which are currently booted up. A 5 line shell script could easily do that. But again - I see no point in doing it if there's no need for it.
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    > A much better option. Still have to deal with the de-facto boilerplate of every html file: head, body, header, footer. Which is why I built something that does it in the browser for me. I find it fascinating that you'd go to all the trouble to build what essentially breaks down to a custom static site generator but you then balk at using an off the shelf one with a build script.
    - axegon_ 6y ago
      The difference is that ci-type of solutions might end up requiring maintenance for a million and one reasons. This won't and building it took me roughly the same amount of time it would take me to navigate through a ci-solution and test that I've set it up correctly(3 hours in total).
Terretta 6y ago
So ... just serve your markdown repo using Caddy. https://caddyserver.com/docs/markdown https://caddyserver.com/docs/markdown ”Caddy is both a flexible, efficient static file server and a powerful, scalable reverse proxy. Use it to serve your static site with compression, template evaluation, Markdown rendering, and more.” https://caddyserver.com/ https://caddyserver.com/ Here’s a blog on doing this with the older version of Caddy: https://blog.thomaspuppe.de/static-sites-from-markdown-with-caddy-server https://blog.thomaspuppe.de/static-sites-from-markdown-with-...

corobo 6y ago

So write HTML and push that directly to your webserver.. what do you want from the world haha Forgive me for suggesting the first thing that popped into mind, could you run the generator script locally and also push the /public dir which your server then serves directly?

axegon_ 6y ago
> So write HTML and push that directly to your webserver. A much better option. Still have to deal with the de-facto boilerplate of every html file: head, body, header, footer. Which is why I built something that does it in the browser for me. > Forgive me for suggesting the first thing that popped into mind, could you run the generator script locally and also push the /public dir which your server then serves directly? Same as CI - adds an extra step to the process. But as I said, services like Netlify come and go and the news might slip by you and catch you off guard. If I had to go down that road, I have ~10 raspberry pi's 6 of which are currently booted up. A 5 line shell script could easily do that. But again - I see no point in doing it if there's no need for it.
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  > A much better option. Still have to deal with the de-facto boilerplate of every html file: head, body, header, footer. Which is why I built something that does it in the browser for me. I find it fascinating that you'd go to all the trouble to build what essentially breaks down to a custom static site generator but you then balk at using an off the shelf one with a build script.
  - axegon_ 6y ago
    The difference is that ci-type of solutions might end up requiring maintenance for a million and one reasons. This won't and building it took me roughly the same amount of time it would take me to navigate through a ci-solution and test that I've set it up correctly(3 hours in total).

Terretta 6y ago

So ... just serve your markdown repo using Caddy. https://caddyserver.com/docs/markdown https://caddyserver.com/docs/markdown ”Caddy is both a flexible, efficient static file server and a powerful, scalable reverse proxy. Use it to serve your static site with compression, template evaluation, Markdown rendering, and more.” https://caddyserver.com/ https://caddyserver.com/ Here’s a blog on doing this with the older version of Caddy: https://blog.thomaspuppe.de/static-sites-from-markdown-with-caddy-server https://blog.thomaspuppe.de/static-sites-from-markdown-with-...