Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

offbase.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#11

Post by danellis »

Spivak wrote: post #7
mpweiher wrote: post #3

Hmm...it uses the CDN's servers. So "no server" or "getting rid of the server" seems a tad inaccurate.

We have to stop this. Words are either effective at communicating the speakers meaning or not. We all know what is meant by serverless and "without a server" and so you are only introducing ambiguity by purposely confusing the actual meaning with the literal meanings of the individual words. If I call someone an asshole nobody is like "but actually an asshole is just one part of..."

> We all know what is meant by serverless and "without a server"

Please feel free to furnish us with a definition that includes this product but excludes the existing solutions.

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#12

Post by pembrook »

You may want to rethink the messaging here.

From the landing page I'm unsure what type of person would benefit from this and what problem you're solving for them.

I already can publish from git directly to Netlify's "distributed CDN." That's the default setup for all static site generators, no?

Or is the difference here that you get a CMS editor built-in to your static site?

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#13

Post by krsdcbl »

Spivak wrote: post #8
krsdcbl wrote: post #6

I kinda feel like the premise is already pretty amiss - a simple, small site that serves static pages puts absolutely no demand on "running a server", you're perfectly fine with a basic hosting plan that will require little to zero maintenance and be really cheap. The idea that you'd have to "run a server" or else "use ready made SaaS platform" feels like a constructed problem.

Isn't that basic hosting plan still a ready made SaaS platform?

only in the sense that you'll pay rent for it, it's not "software" and will let you run your own stack with no added cost and full portability.

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#14

Post by [deleted] »

pembrook wrote: post #12

You may want to rethink the messaging here. From the landing page I'm unsure what type of person would benefit from this and what problem you're solving for them. I already can publish from git directly to Netlify's "distributed CDN." That's the default setup for all static site generators, no? Or is the difference here that you get a CMS editor built-in to your static site?

[deleted]

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#15

Post by mmazing »

Spivak wrote: post #8
krsdcbl wrote: post #6

I kinda feel like the premise is already pretty amiss - a simple, small site that serves static pages puts absolutely no demand on "running a server", you're perfectly fine with a basic hosting plan that will require little to zero maintenance and be really cheap. The idea that you'd have to "run a server" or else "use ready made SaaS platform" feels like a constructed problem.

Isn't that basic hosting plan still a ready made SaaS platform?

Isn't putting something on Github to host it still a ready made SaaS platform?

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#16

Post by tyingq »

pembrook wrote: post #12

You may want to rethink the messaging here. From the landing page I'm unsure what type of person would benefit from this and what problem you're solving for them. I already can publish from git directly to Netlify's "distributed CDN." That's the default setup for all static site generators, no? Or is the difference here that you get a CMS editor built-in to your static site?

Ah, this comment makes it clear for me, and you're right...a serverless CMS editor appears to be the main benefit. That would be valuable for some, but the message wasn't coming across for me.

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#17

Post by proyb »

"Not everyone can afford the time, money, and effort to maintain a server."

Shared hosting doesn't need effort to maintain server and have been done for long time? There are a few free hosting.

There is a need for more than just CMS, I have been working on the new idea.

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#18

Post by XCSme »

Spivak wrote: post #7
mpweiher wrote: post #3

Hmm...it uses the CDN's servers. So "no server" or "getting rid of the server" seems a tad inaccurate.

We have to stop this. Words are either effective at communicating the speakers meaning or not. We all know what is meant by serverless and "without a server" and so you are only introducing ambiguity by purposely confusing the actual meaning with the literal meanings of the individual words. If I call someone an asshole nobody is like "but actually an asshole is just one part of..."

Personally I dislike the "serverless" word too, it's still not clearly defined and there are indeed servers being used that can still somehow crash, run out of resources, be hacked, etc.

Re: Offbase: Static site generator in a browser

#19

Post by XCSme »

proyb wrote: post #17

"Not everyone can afford the time, money, and effort to maintain a server." Shared hosting doesn't need effort to maintain server and have been done for long time? There are a few free hosting. There is a need for more than just CMS, I have been working on the new idea.

I agree, many always start with the premise "hosting is hard", but maybe this was true 20 years ago, now hosting providers let you spin-up a server in a few clicks, have monitoring, alerts, automatic updates and more. The good part is that for 99.99% of the time, once you set-up a server it could keep on running without issues for many years.

I am not a sys-admin but I have used multiple hosting providers (shared, VPS, dedicated) and so far I never had a single server fail or suddenly stop working.

Post reply on HN