Real People dont Jekyll on GitHub
Time to read: 3 min
September 18, 2018
Real People dont rely/depend on GitHub.
You are relying on someone ELSEs website to not REFUSE your content, REFUSE the SIZE of your content, etc.
Easier? Im not buying it.
Who taught you how to code?
You are effectively “trying to fix anothers mess” and “cheating” to get the features you want to work, working.
You dont want to go hunt down a ISP and domain name and lazily take what GH gives you (for free).
You are forcing a REVISION CONTROL SYSTEM to function as a “WEBSERVER with DYNAMIC page processing functionality” by cheating the system into thinking its “source code being updated for a binary application” several times a day.
(This fools google into thinking GH is more valuable than it really is.)
You are needlessly wasting revisions (HDD space) 90% of the time because you are too afraid actually HARD SAVE something…. and Im betting that you are swamping thier servers needlessly.
TO HOST YOUR CONTENT. Not Source code. WEB CODE.
Change will happen.
Every three months or so Im finding better ways to reconfigure my website-
EFFICIENCY Jekyll bugs ETC...
And I have loads of posts AND content.
Images and (legal) ISOs… the werks.
If you want something done, HOST and code it yourself.
Dont assume because it works on GitHub that it works anywhere else.
You are making people do more work than is necessary because you wont write the code properly in THE FIRST PLACE.
Half the time your so called “lovely source code” is broken so bad its not useable-wasting HDD space on GH.
YMMV, right? If you arent aiming to give people a WORKING solution, you might as well be A PART OF THE PROBLEM.
At least with application level source code- most programmers TRY to get the code to compile…
NOPE. NOT YOU.
Because -YOU- dont care.
REAL PEOPLE dont rely on GitHUB for a Jekyll produced website.
GH is for SOURCE CODE.
ONLY SOURCE CODE.
Source code that large groups can “blame” each other for ad nauseum when the code breaks- THEN and only THEN backport changes from a prior REVISION.
-any other use is ABUSE.
Dont think I wont report it.