This seems like a nightmare to setup and maintain for a new comer. Netlify lets us setup things in a whiff. This is a nice project but not for anyone below intermediate.
Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
51–60 of 171 posts
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#52Am I the only one who still hosts my own static sites on a plain old virtual machine? It's pretty simple to configure nginx for static sites, and by doing it yourself you reduce vendor lockin to just about nil. Even if S3 is massively cheaper, $5/month for a tiny VM seems like a small price to pay for being vendor-abstract. I suppose S3 is way less likely to suffer a meaningful outage than my little VM, but how many…
If it’s a static site and you own the domain then vendor lock-in isn’t really a problem regardless of if you use cloud services or not. Because you can just dump those files on a different provider and change your DNS entry. It’s not even remotely the same level of complexity as other services when people normally talk about vendor lock-in.
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#53Other than the notion that all traffic should be served over HTTPs, if you have purely static site, why the big fuss?
people sniffing on what kind of static content you are consuming. think public unsecured wifis or sensitive material.
True. I suppose for many types of content that could be a legitimate concern.
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#54Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#55Am I the only one who still hosts my own static sites on a plain old virtual machine? It's pretty simple to configure nginx for static sites, and by doing it yourself you reduce vendor lockin to just about nil. Even if S3 is massively cheaper, $5/month for a tiny VM seems like a small price to pay for being vendor-abstract. I suppose S3 is way less likely to suffer a meaningful outage than my little VM, but how many…
I disagree with encouraging people to do this. You are not accounting for a CDN here, like the post. A website on the HN front page went down yesterday on a $5 VM. And S3 just holds your HTML files, for super cheap. There’s no lock-in concern there. You can easily migrate to nginx in the future if you really want, but start with S3
HN won't take a static website on a $5 VM down if it's set up even remotely correctly. Traffic to a popular link on HN is likely to get on the order of ~100rps max (more likely 1-10rps). Nginx will handle that with no problem.
CDNs may make a site a bit faster, but for a static site it's unlikely to make much difference if you're on a good host in US/EU or central Asia. If you're hosting in Australia or Japan, maybe it might be a little slower than expected, but still totally usable.
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#56Ha I just did the exact same thing yesterday evening... Funny how stuff like this hits place one in HackerNews these days.
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#57Other than the notion that all traffic should be served over HTTPs, if you have purely static site, why the big fuss?
There are plenty of reasons even beyond privacy and MITM content changes. Supposedly HTTPS is better for SEO and also there are browser APIs[1] that only work in HTTPS context [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Secure...
If you're building an application that requires the uses of these APIs, I'd hardly call that a static site, but maybe that's just me.
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#58Am I the only one who still hosts my own static sites on a plain old virtual machine? It's pretty simple to configure nginx for static sites, and by doing it yourself you reduce vendor lockin to just about nil. Even if S3 is massively cheaper, $5/month for a tiny VM seems like a small price to pay for being vendor-abstract. I suppose S3 is way less likely to suffer a meaningful outage than my little VM, but how many…
yes. I host my personal website (maddo.xxx) on a single EC2 instance with just nginx. It's easy. It's fast. When I want to over-engineer the shit out of it for fun, it's ready.
Deploys? One line of `scp`
scp -r -i ./certs/maddoxxxnginx.pem ./app/* ubuntu@13.52.101.21:/var/www/maddo.xxx/
(that deploy script just bulk uploads everything, but that's fine for now. The whole site is measured in KB.)
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with encouraging people to do this. You are not accounting for a CDN here, like the post. A website on the HN front page went down yesterday on a $5 VM. And S3 just holds your HTML files, for super cheap. There’s no lock-in concern there. You can easily migrate to nginx in the future if you really want, but start with S3
HN won't take a static website on a $5 VM down if it's set up even remotely correctly. Traffic to a popular link on HN is likely to get on the order of ~100rps max (more likely 1-10rps). Nginx will handle that with no problem. CDNs may make a site a bit faster, but for a static site it's unlikely to make much difference if you're on a good host in US/EU or central Asia. If you're hosting in Australia or Japan, maybe…
Completely agree. I think many people here regularly work on larger web applications in dynamic languages with heavy JS front-ends piling on dependencies.
Nginx is unbelievably fast by itself, not to mention the optimizations that are completely unnecessary for a static blog. It's not going to be your blocker.
If you're serving up 20MB of JS and inlined images on each page load, yeah, you may want to rethink that. But we don't need to get wild. My homepage is 9.2KB. Longer blog posts (e.g. [1]) can clock in at 20KB. HN won't take that down.
[1] https://maddo.xxx/thoughts/what-the-hell-are-you-doing.html
Re: Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN, and custom domains
#60Am I the only one who still hosts my own static sites on a plain old virtual machine? It's pretty simple to configure nginx for static sites, and by doing it yourself you reduce vendor lockin to just about nil. Even if S3 is massively cheaper, $5/month for a tiny VM seems like a small price to pay for being vendor-abstract. I suppose S3 is way less likely to suffer a meaningful outage than my little VM, but how many…
I disagree with encouraging people to do this. You are not accounting for a CDN here, like the post. A website on the HN front page went down yesterday on a $5 VM. And S3 just holds your HTML files, for super cheap. There’s no lock-in concern there. You can easily migrate to nginx in the future if you really want, but start with S3
Putting Cloudflare in front of a VPS is pretty simple and gives you the same result so long as you are sending the correct cache headers.