4 ms·

I’m sure it’s non zero. Maybe you could offer to pay for hosting?

by ivanstegic 3y ago

saagarjha 3y ago
It’s a bunch of static text, no? Surely it can run on a pretty small budget?
- zinekeller 3y ago
  While I'm pretty sure that it can run on a small budget, I'm less sure that the owners have the time to maintain the site (a static website still needs to update the server, domain and certificates and while this can be automated to a degree it's still a lot a work).
  - Karunamon 3y ago
    If they are static sites and mostly text, they could be hosted directly out of freaking S3 for a pittance. There is no way a service this niche and this intentionally minimal consumes enough bandwidth to make that painful.
    - ivanstegic 3y ago
      Maybe you should step up and do it. It’s not just about paying a pittance but it’s also about the time to maintain.
      - Karunamon 3y ago
        Once it's up on some kind of object storage there is no "maintaining". The content sits there and is accessible. That's it. We are talking about ensuring that the content doesn't go away, not keeping the service writable. Yes, I am serious. My email is in my profile. I would gladly take this on.
        kvetching 3y ago
        [flagged]
        Karunamon 3y ago
        That unwarranted trash aside: Step one: since all of the pages are single pages accessed by name, the source content is likely a batch of HTML files. So: create an S3 bucket and mass upload everything to the bucket. Step two: enable public access and hosting on the bucket Step three: all of the files are now accessible under something like https://my-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com https://my-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com Step four (optional): register a domain via Route 53 and create a simple record that points to the bucket so we have a better URL Making the service writable again is a different story. The technical steps of getting it online be trivial for anybody that could do the above, but dealing with the abuse cases is something else entirely.
        danjac 3y ago
        Why on earth would you need a "modern Javascript framework" for serving static pages? Or a database? Or god forbid, GraphQL?
        auct 3y ago
        You can use cloudflare r2. It has no cost for bandwidth and first 10gb of storage is free.
        rakoo 3y ago
        So, do it. Don't ask for others to spoon-feed it to you, contact the owner, take the matter in your hands.
        Karunamon 3y ago
        Who asked for anything to be spoon-fed?
        rakoo 3y ago

I’m sure it’s non zero. Maybe you could offer to pay for hosting?

saagarjha 3y ago

It’s a bunch of static text, no? Surely it can run on a pretty small budget?

zinekeller 3y ago
While I'm pretty sure that it can run on a small budget, I'm less sure that the owners have the time to maintain the site (a static website still needs to update the server, domain and certificates and while this can be automated to a degree it's still a lot a work).
- Karunamon 3y ago
  If they are static sites and mostly text, they could be hosted directly out of freaking S3 for a pittance. There is no way a service this niche and this intentionally minimal consumes enough bandwidth to make that painful.
  - ivanstegic 3y ago
    Maybe you should step up and do it. It’s not just about paying a pittance but it’s also about the time to maintain.
    - Karunamon 3y ago
      Once it's up on some kind of object storage there is no "maintaining". The content sits there and is accessible. That's it. We are talking about ensuring that the content doesn't go away, not keeping the service writable. Yes, I am serious. My email is in my profile. I would gladly take this on.
      - kvetching 3y ago
        [flagged]
        Karunamon 3y ago
        That unwarranted trash aside: Step one: since all of the pages are single pages accessed by name, the source content is likely a batch of HTML files. So: create an S3 bucket and mass upload everything to the bucket. Step two: enable public access and hosting on the bucket Step three: all of the files are now accessible under something like https://my-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com https://my-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com Step four (optional): register a domain via Route 53 and create a simple record that points to the bucket so we have a better URL Making the service writable again is a different story. The technical steps of getting it online be trivial for anybody that could do the above, but dealing with the abuse cases is something else entirely.
        danjac 3y ago
        Why on earth would you need a "modern Javascript framework" for serving static pages? Or a database? Or god forbid, GraphQL?
      - auct 3y ago
        You can use cloudflare r2. It has no cost for bandwidth and first 10gb of storage is free.
      - rakoo 3y ago
        So, do it. Don't ask for others to spoon-feed it to you, contact the owner, take the matter in your hands.
        Karunamon 3y ago
        Who asked for anything to be spoon-fed?
        rakoo 3y ago