You know, I suppose we could just use GitHub pages. On Dec 17, 2016 17:32, "Charles Cossé" <cco...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Daniel Foerster <pydsig...@gmail.com> wrote: > Using S3/CloudFront is a lot cheaper than the EC2 setup you're imagining > (and which a Django stack would require). > > I never said to use Amazon at all. Just use the current server, whatever it is (unless it's Amazon). > On 12/17/2016 05:11 PM, Charles Cossé wrote: > > Yikes! who's gonna pay the Amazon bill? > > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Paul Vincent Craven < > p...@cravenfamily.com> wrote: > >> If most of the site is static, then I think Django would be overkill. The >> static portion of the site can easily be deployed via Amazon S3/CloudFront >> and then we'd not have to maintain a server. >> >> Paul Vincent Craven >> >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Charles Cossé <cco...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Kluyver <tak...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> So far, I think the proposals for the static information part of the >>>> site are Nikola (a static site generator oriented around blogs) and Sphinx >>>> (oriented around docs). Both are written in Python. Does anyone want to >>>> make the case for any other system? >>>> >>>> >>> Can Django factor-in there? I guess it would reside underneathe the >>> other pkgs ... but might as well run Python through-and-through imho. >>> >>> >> > > > -- > > Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning > <http://www.asymptopia.org> > > > > -- Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning <http://www.asymptopia.org>
