Micro.blog

kaa
kaa

I like Arun and what he does. His latest post on choosing a static site generator for a personal site is so far off the mark. You know what you should do if you want a static site? You get yourself an account on Micro.blog. that’s what you do.

hjertnes
hjertnes

@kaa Not a static site generator. It might use one behind the scenes.

kaa
kaa

@hjertnes All the benefits, none of the pain (unless you want it, fill your boots)

In reply to
hjertnes
hjertnes

@kaa It doesn’t have all the benefits of a static site generator, or any of them as far as I’m concerned. But it has a bunch of other benefits.

kaa
kaa

@hjertnes Really? I'm curious now. My site is effectively generated off of Hugo if I'm correct? It is separate to all of this interative elements (so if MB goes down, my site remains up), I have all the plugins, site code control, I can export it all in any number of formats...but I don't need to administer any of it. So what are the benefits I'm missing? Geniuinely curious.

hjertnes
hjertnes

@kaa If some parts of Micro.blog goes down your site will be up, but if other parts goes down it will not.

The big advantages to having a static site to me is that you have this folder of markdown files that is the content of your site.

You can with some minor adjustments can move from Jekyll, to Hugo, and most other static site generators. And if want you can use a text editor or command line tools for search and replace and similar changes if you want to.

Because of how much easier it is to run a static site generator locally than conventional CMS’es not to mention hosted services, if you know your way around the command line that is. But I think there are a large overlap between people who know how to write CSS and people who know how to use the command line, I think it is much easier to play around with new designs and things like that.

For a lot of people it is also a huge thing that you can have a web site without and server side code running that could have security problems.