What’s the downside you see from having a static IP address?
What's the downside to having one's phone number in the public directory? There's no security risk and yet plenty of people opt out. It's personally identifying information.
I don’t know if any companies provide reverse proxies without a CDN though.
Exactly.
You still need encryption between your CDN and your origin, ideally using a proper certificate.
It can be self-signed though, that's what I'm doing and it's partly to outsource the TLS maintenance. But the main reason I'm doing it is to get IP privacy. WHOIS domain privacy is fine, but to me it seems pretty sub-optimal for a personal site to be publicly associated with even a permanent IP address. A VPS is meant to be private, it's in the name. This is something that doesn't get talked about much. I don't see any way to achieve this without a CDN, unfortunately.
I guess it’s popular because people already use Github and don’t want to look for other services?
Yes, and the general confusion between Git and Github, and between public things and private things. It's everywhere today. Another example: saying "my Substack" as if blogging was just invented by this private company. So it's worse than just laziness IMO. It's a reflexive trusting of the private over the public.
I have some static sites that I just rsync to my VPS and serve using Nginx. That’s definitely a good option.
Agree. And hard to get security wrong cos no database.
If you want to make it faster by using a CDN and don’t want it to be too hard to set up, you’re going to have to use a CDN service.
Yes but this can just be a drop-in frontend for the VPS. Point the domain to Cloudflare and tell only Cloudflare where to find the site. This provides IP privacy and also TLS without having to deal with LetsEncrypt. It's not ideal because... Cloudflare... but at least you're using standard web tools. To ditch Cloudflare you just unplug them at the domain and you still have a website.
Perhaps its irrational but I'm bothered by how many people seem to think that Github Pages is the only way to host a static website. I know that's not your case.
This is a bit fuzzy. You seem to recommend a VPS but then suggest a bunch of page-hosting platforms.
If someone is using a static site generator, then they're already running a web server, even if it's on localhost. The friction of moving the webserver to the VPS is basically zero, and that way they're not worsening the web's corporate centralization problem.
I host my sites on a VPS. Better internet connection and uptime, and you can get pretty good VPSes for less than $40/year.
I preferred this advice.
This whole subject is such a chestnut here. No messaging option is perfect, you will need to compromise. If a perfect option existed you would have heard of it already. And if you haven't heard of it, then by definition it must be small with few users and even fewer maintainers to keep an eye on its codebase and security, which is risky in itself.
Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Can recommend Hetzner (German IP). Good value and so far solid.
Before that I used OVH (French IP) for years but it ended badly. First they locked me out of my account for violating 2FA which I had not asked for or been told about, and would not provide any recourse except sending them a literal signed paper letter, which I had to do twice because the first one they ignored. A nightmare which went on for weeks. And then, cherry on the cake, my VPS literally went up in smoke when their Strasbourg data center burned down! Oops! Looks like your VPS is gone, sorry about that, here's a voucher for six months free hosting! Months later they discovered a backup but the damage was done. Never again.
i dont want to learn 400 obscure keystrokes among other nonsense. we dont need to hear about your text editing stockholm-syndrome.
This reads like projected insecurity. Or maybe even... jealousy.
Lots of deluded wishful thinking in this thread. I would never vote for Vance either, but I recognize an impressive debate performance when I see one.
This doesn't really compute. Society would collapse if nobody trusted "third parties", and your second phrase is just hyperbole.
It's more complex than that. The issue is money, and incentives, and how power is structured. A third party that you are paying or whose income is uncoupled to the profit motive, and preferably one that has both private and institutional stakeholders - well, if we choose not to trust them, then basically we can't trust anyone for anything. That would be a dark place to be.
Yes and for an interesting reason. I am a member of a minority group. Doesn't matter which, and I have never seen it as a defining part of my identity, but it has one obvious advantage: my friends have come from a wider variety of class backgrounds than they otherwise might have.
Personally I'm skeptical about multiculturalism, I think it can be dangerous in democracy if taken too far. But the fact that humans inevitably sort themselves into groups does have some upsides. De Tocqueville mentioned the political one: groups are a bulwark to protect the individual from the state. But there's another: a group which is based on ethnicity, or sexuality, or some other immutable personal condition, or religion, or a political ideology, or even a hobby, is at least not one which is based on money and social class.
Agreed.
and then you lapse into using "patreon" as if it's a generic noun!
Not your intention I know, but this kind of corporate capture of minds has to end somehow.