3 ms·
just an opinion: i really don't want to tie my site with an os x-only app. for these geeky people to tinker with static site, i think they would prefer activel
by tuananh 12y ago
just an opinion: i really don't want to tie my site with an os x-only app.
for these geeky people to tinker with static site, i think they would prefer actively developed, unix-friendly tool.
but what do i know, i'm just one person.
- chc 12y agoThis appears to be a GUI on top of an open-source Django-based tool. I haven't tried it on any platform, but only the GUI is OS X-only as far as I can tell.
- city41 12y agoThere are more static site generators now then you could ever evaluate in a lifetime. So if one is OSX specific, I don't think that's a big deal. For what it's worth I like Wintersmith (http://wintersmith.io http://wintersmith.io) for a command line, UNIX friendly generator. It's built on NodeJS.
- pervycreeper 12y agoAgreed, but, arguably, it is not the app which would trap you, but the file format. If a static site generator took as input, say, a collection of markdown files, with maybe some metadata in the filenames and directory structure, along with a single plaintext configuration file, it would be easy to move between different solutions, so it would be less configurable, than, say Jekyll, but easier to move to something else. I do not know if such a thing exists at the moment, but would be interested if someone does.
- danoprey 12y agoIt's available on UNIX systems from the CLI, and is open source: https://github.com/koenbok/cactus https://github.com/koenbok/cactus
- tuananh 12y agoCool then. I didn't know about this.