[pbiggar]

Disclaimer: I'm founder of DarkLang, a sorta competitor.

While I personally agree that self-hosting is a nightmare, the biggest complaint we've heard about Dark has been related to vendor lock-in. I think this is a pretty good selling point for StaticBackend, for a few reasons: 1) what if you get too big for the hosting? 2) what if the company goes go out of business! 3) what if the company determines that hosting you is against the T&C (see the Parler thing this week, for example, although I completely agree with AWS' decision there).

I don't think self-hosting is really a good idea if you can avoid it, but a lot of people are soothed by the idea that they could, if they really needed to.

[nicoburns]

> I don't think self-hosting is really a good idea if you can avoid it, but a lot of people are soothed by the idea that they could, if they really needed to.

Ability to self host often also means ability to switch hosted providers. And things like being able to run local copies or instances in CI too.

[dstpierre]

thanks, this give me some confidence.

I think differently regarding self-hosting though. By the fact that StaticBackend is a Go web server, it's a standalone Linux binary and can be hosted very easily on x64 Linux server.

But I'll see when the first customer will choose that option. I'll be ready to help them deploy for sure.