a few people pushed back on my last post about static sites and vendor lock-in and after thinking about it, i think they were right about one thing: i was mixing up the static site itself with the services around it. the actual static output is pretty portable. if i have the html, css, js, and assets i can generally move those somewhere else without much trouble.
what i was really getting at was everything i might build around that output (i.e., deployment, forms, analytics, dns, redirects, search etc.). those arent necessarily part of the static site itself but they can become tied to a particular provider.
so my original wording made it sound like the static sites are inherently difficult to move which isnt what i mean. it does leave me a questio tho: when building a static site, how do you decide which provider-specific features are worth using for convenience and which ones you deliberately keep portable?
esp. for small client sites im wondering where people draw that line between keeping things simple and avoiding unnecessary dependency on one platform. one said if theyre willing to pay for it then give it to them… hahahaha
Source: r/statichosting · by /u/sourraine