3 ms·
Yeah I went with Netlify for my static site because I have zero desire to ever been an IT admin. I do skip the static generator part and go with artisinally ha
by forrestthewoods 4y ago
Yeah I went with Netlify for my static site because I have zero desire to ever been an IT admin.
I do skip the static generator part and go with artisinally hand crafted HTML/CSS/JS instead. It’s radically simpler and ultimately better imho.
- hum3hum3 4y agoI used to use Amazon but something broke somewhere and I haven' fixed it. Netlify was very low effort on my part. However I really like the idea of this approach as it helps feed into owning your own data. So I may have another go using this.
- pwdisswordfish9 4y agoHow do you get your content into Netlify? They push the CI/CD angle pretty hard (sometimes to the exclusion of other things; e.g. bugs in the CLI that break things if you aren't on their expected/happy path) and the fetishization of GitHub-integrated CI/CD leads to stuff that is about as complex as the traditional undesirable IT overhead.
- forrestthewoods 4y agoMy static website is in a private GitHub repo. I simply push to that. Because my site is not statically generated there’s no real complexity here? When I’m working on it locally I simply open a .html file from my local drive in a browser. When I’m done I push to GitHub and Netlify updates in seconds.
- hoppyhoppy2 4y agoIf that's a concern, you can choose to deploy your site from a .zip file uploaded straight to Netlify