4 ms·
Sure most websites could easily served as static files on a server, but advocating for everything to be hosted on a single proprietary service is not a good ide
by dna_polymerase 6y ago
Sure most websites could easily served as static files on a server, but advocating for everything to be hosted on a single proprietary service is not a good idea.
But hosting an Apache or nginx to serve static files is easy enough and a single $5 or $10 instance on any hosting service out there could easily survive a HN frontpage.
- jakear 6y agoNot advocating for any service in particular (though disclaimer I do work at msft), I’m honestly wondering why someone would choose to ship a website as a server running on a hardware time slot rental with all the setup, cost, inscalability, and management that requires, as opposed to a free cdn that gives you a website with only some markdown.
- lifthrasiir 6y agoMainly because it was not a mere markdown. You can't see right now, but it had submission forms with previews and rating forms. Yes, you can route dynamic parts to elsewhere, but it was not really static for a while.