tobiassjosten

So true. Though I think a lot of the insecurity comes from not knowing what is actually the norm. When I started out I thought people were kidding, that it was all a big joke, when they told me their hourly wages. Turns out you actually need to bump your prices up quite a bit for it to compensate for all "non-work" stuff.

I'm hoping this article can however slightly help shift the norm for some newly started developer, so maybe they can take the step and ask for more.

That's definitely an option and to be fair I didn't use any Jekyll plugins up until recently. But my main gripe is still the lacking redirection. I can't lose that ability for this blog and all its accumulated URL fixes over the years.

For new blogs I could definitely consider GitHub Pages. In fact I use it for one I started just a month ago.

Varnish would have been fun to play with for a static blog. For one thing you then could use ESI to not have to invalidate the cache as often.

But I disagree with one thing — the "git push → deploy dance" is a pro for Jekyll! ;)

Glad you like it! Definitely nice when you get to take the time with these kind of projects.

Check out Amazon's pricing pages ([1] and [2]) for details.

As for resources spent, my own blog has had just over 10k pageviews since Saturday when I launched on S3/CF and for that I'm paying $0.07 (S3) + $0.12 (CF) = a whooping $0.19! Including a lot of writing files back and forth to get everything up and running.

[1] http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ [2] http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/

Yup! I explain why in my first post: http://vvv.tobiassjosten.net/internet/using-www-for-your-dom...

You could probably just slap CloudFront on the existing WP site. Might have side-effects but it would surely bump the performance up.

The rate at which these generators pop up is a testament to how awesome they are. I really think you're on to something with the built-in S3 deployment. Any plans for extending it with CloudFront caching?

Amen on the Nerd Nirvana! :)

Personally I prefer [1] using a subdomain over the bare domain. If your registrar doesn't support www redirection you could always use WWWizer [2].

[1] http://vvv.tobiassjosten.net/internet/using-www-for-your-dom... [2] http://wwwizer.com/

You could set it up to either accept clients to POST a user to the /users collection, or PUT a user at /users/123. With unknown IDs the latter isn't really viable.

This is primarily a matter of idempotence. Several POSTs to /users would create many identical users whereas multiple PUTs to /users/123 would have exactly the same result as just one request. The PUT is idempotent.

I wrote up a few pros and cons on using www a while ago. Basically I think only using the TLD is more pure but in the long run you lose less than you might gain by dividing services on subdomains. Whatever that subdomain may be.

http://vvv.tobiassjosten.net/internet/using-www-for-your-dom...