4 ms·

Hugo, s3, cloudfront? That sounds neither simple, nor well suited, for a lot of use cases like the local bakery or artist that wants to maintain a site. Most of

Hugo, s3, cloudfront? That sounds neither simple, nor well suited, for a lot of use cases like the local bakery or artist that wants to maintain a site. Most of the static site generator ecosystem seems to be aimed at developers that want too dabble in solutions way oversized for the problem. I don't need global CDNs for a site that sees loads easily served by WordPress or some other non-sexy CMS on a single instance of a random HTTP server, I need a CMS that I can put on there in 5 minutes, create an account and let people administer content. Sure, I realize there's a) valid use cases and b) options for that in the SSG space but quite a lot of the development there seems like solutions for imaginary or self imposed problems the world at large has moved on from.

gonzo41 6y ago
I agree that static site generators could really use some better quick start features. But i disagree that turning on WordPress is any less complex. There's a lot more moving parts that your responsible for with wordpress than having a folder full of markdown files. The benefit of a CDN is the fantasy it gives you of people reading your blog en mass. And also it's all managed elsewhere and they handle ssl for you easily. but you know hike your own hike and all that.
- tastroder 6y ago
  That's fair, I guess I'm a bit biased there by the ecosystem I've been using for decades. I was just thinking of this old stack as a nice middle ground, it's so boring pretty much every hoster is good at managing the major moving parts without any lock in.
sebmellen 6y ago
Try https://netlify.com https://netlify.com. My mother runs a small business, I moved her website from a shitty HostGator setup to there and it's been a charm. Also, I run my company's website on it (https://assembl.net https://assembl.net) and my blog (https://blog.slm.space https://blog.slm.space). Very different sites, but they all run through Netlify. I haven't had a single problem with them. I think even the most tech-illiterate could use it with their drag+drop site hosting feature + https://forestry.io https://forestry.io CMS.
- petepete 6y ago
  Netlify is one of the few tools where everything is as I expect it. Everything I've done with it has 'just worked' and I love the automatic preview builds that are generated for GitHub PRs.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Every time I break out of its ecosystem, I'm simply horrified. Using an external service from AWS or Google is a nightmare of configuration. They are both preparing on day 1 for your application to become Facebook and Amazon, forcing me to make decisions I don't even begin to judge, and opening pathways through security that might be right or might be complete disasters. The "happy path" for a new user is rarely clear, and the documentation is bewildering because it's aimed at much more difficult cases than mine. Netlify does a great job of simplyfing to a small number of likely paths. At some point I'd surely break out of its use case and be forced to swim in the much deeper pool of a more general provider, but at least I'll have some grounding to start from.
modo_mario 6y ago
Static website generator with a markdown editor will end up cheaper probably. Wordpress or drupal will generally end up easier as long as nothing goes wrong. From my experience with inexperienced use and users stuff will go wrong at some point and then it can be a bit more of a hassle.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  They are definitely cheaper, as long as you already employ technical staff. I've worked as an IT volunteer in a small org, and there was no dedicated tech beyond me. Any kind of setup that I built for authoring the website would have to be as usable by non-technical users as possible, so I went with Wordpress. I had no replacement and there was no-one with enough technical know-how to handle authoring and troubleshooting a cheap static site, so I deliberately chose WP to minimise problems. The cost was 2-3x larger than the cheaper alternatives, but ultimately it was keeping the website up that mattered.

gonzo41 6y ago

I agree that static site generators could really use some better quick start features. But i disagree that turning on WordPress is any less complex. There's a lot more moving parts that your responsible for with wordpress than having a folder full of markdown files. The benefit of a CDN is the fantasy it gives you of people reading your blog en mass. And also it's all managed elsewhere and they handle ssl for you easily. but you know hike your own hike and all that.

tastroder 6y ago
That's fair, I guess I'm a bit biased there by the ecosystem I've been using for decades. I was just thinking of this old stack as a nice middle ground, it's so boring pretty much every hoster is good at managing the major moving parts without any lock in.

sebmellen 6y ago

Try https://netlify.com https://netlify.com. My mother runs a small business, I moved her website from a shitty HostGator setup to there and it's been a charm. Also, I run my company's website on it (https://assembl.net https://assembl.net) and my blog (https://blog.slm.space https://blog.slm.space). Very different sites, but they all run through Netlify. I haven't had a single problem with them. I think even the most tech-illiterate could use it with their drag+drop site hosting feature + https://forestry.io https://forestry.io CMS.

petepete 6y ago
Netlify is one of the few tools where everything is as I expect it. Everything I've done with it has 'just worked' and I love the automatic preview builds that are generated for GitHub PRs.
jfengel 6y ago
Every time I break out of its ecosystem, I'm simply horrified. Using an external service from AWS or Google is a nightmare of configuration. They are both preparing on day 1 for your application to become Facebook and Amazon, forcing me to make decisions I don't even begin to judge, and opening pathways through security that might be right or might be complete disasters. The "happy path" for a new user is rarely clear, and the documentation is bewildering because it's aimed at much more difficult cases than mine. Netlify does a great job of simplyfing to a small number of likely paths. At some point I'd surely break out of its use case and be forced to swim in the much deeper pool of a more general provider, but at least I'll have some grounding to start from.

modo_mario 6y ago

Static website generator with a markdown editor will end up cheaper probably. Wordpress or drupal will generally end up easier as long as nothing goes wrong. From my experience with inexperienced use and users stuff will go wrong at some point and then it can be a bit more of a hassle.

selfhoster11 6y ago
They are definitely cheaper, as long as you already employ technical staff. I've worked as an IT volunteer in a small org, and there was no dedicated tech beyond me. Any kind of setup that I built for authoring the website would have to be as usable by non-technical users as possible, so I went with Wordpress. I had no replacement and there was no-one with enough technical know-how to handle authoring and troubleshooting a cheap static site, so I deliberately chose WP to minimise problems. The cost was 2-3x larger than the cheaper alternatives, but ultimately it was keeping the website up that mattered.