Really good because it walks you through every step and explains what's going on. The result is a version-controlled, robust, easy to maintain site that scales beautifully.
Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
151–160 of 201 posts
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, that's why I recently started checking people's profiles before posting a dissenting reply, and not making the reply if they've enough karma to downvote me.
You can't down vote direct replies.
Damn. Guess I'll have to stick to flagging them. Thanks for the info though.
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, that's why I recently started checking people's profiles before posting a dissenting reply, and not making the reply if they've enough karma to downvote me.
You couldn't have been about to say something substantial and constructive if the mere worry of being downvoted once is enough to silence your voice.
> constructive
One cannot "construct" anything from a foundation that is so thoroughly wrong that it crumbles at the slightest touch.
Is it then so wrong to give that foundation a hardy poke, rather than making a vain attempt to "construct" something atop it?
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#154Neocities [0] does all of this! - It's free (though you can become a supporter and get some extra benefits) [1] - It's fast, since it uses it's own CDN. [2] - It's secure, all pages support SSL, even with custom domains. [3] - It has a command line tool [4] that can be wrapped to automate upload of pages, or used in a Git hook. - It has a plethora of learning resources [5]. [0] https://neocities.org [1] https://neoci…
thanks. i've just been thinking how i wanted an easy way to schedule updates. the cli should work nicely.
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#155A fast static site? Have we traveled back to 1997.
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#156I wrote a similar blog post: https://tberra.com/aws/amazon/meta/2016/11/12/the-birth-of-a... The main differences on mine are: - I use Jekyll, which is ranked #1 in the static site generator space. - Hosted on AWS S3. - CloudFront in front of S3. - Routing and aliases handled by Route53. - Deployed using a tool called s3_websites (change detection only uploading generated files AND cloud front cache invalidation for…
I see both Jekyll and Hugo mentioned frequently in the "Using GitHub and X to host your website" space. Do you have any practical our technical reasons for preferring one over the other?
I've dropped Jekyll just because of windows support. I've been using hexo and hugo in two projects and worked great!
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, that's why I recently started checking people's profiles before posting a dissenting reply, and not making the reply if they've enough karma to downvote me.
If you care deeply enough about fake internet points to go to that much trouble, IMHO, you're doing it wrong. Are you feeling picked-on because of what you're saying, or how you're saying it?
> Are you feeling picked-on because of what you're saying, or how you're saying it?
That's impossible to answer without telepathy.
(Aside from topics that generate lots of discussion that weighs one particular way, I find it impossible to determine a priori whether a particular viewpoint is controversial on HN. For instance I have recently and wrongly predicted that transhumanism would be uncontroversial; and while I've noted this as evidence for future predictions, I am unable to explain it logically.)
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
You couldn't have been about to say something substantial and constructive if the mere worry of being downvoted once is enough to silence your voice.
> constructive One cannot "construct" anything from a foundation that is so thoroughly wrong that it crumbles at the slightest touch. Is it then so wrong to give that foundation a hardy poke, rather than making a vain attempt to "construct" something atop it?
Upvoted :) What about don't giving a fuck about scores!?
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
> constructive One cannot "construct" anything from a foundation that is so thoroughly wrong that it crumbles at the slightest touch. Is it then so wrong to give that foundation a hardy poke, rather than making a vain attempt to "construct" something atop it?
Upvoted :) What about don't giving a fuck about scores!?
Ability-to-flag says otherwise. (I have recently been informed here that the downvoting feature is worthless even to those who can use it.)
Re: Building a fast, secured and free static site in less than three hours
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It will.
Not really. They have two options for protecting the "back" connection: Full SSL and Full SSL (Strict). Full SSL doesn't really protect you since Cloudflare won't check if the certificate is valid, an attacker could make their own self-signed cert and MITM you. Full SSL (Strict) requires a valid cert for the domain being requested . If you had that, you wouldn't need Cloudflare in the first place.
But the domain is github.com, which has a valid ssl cert. You only need cloudflare to get it on your own domain.