[WCSTombs]

> Compare this to a Workflow. All that YAML, all that code from someone else, all that additional complexity in spinning up containers or maintaining runners—just to build a static site? Nah, we've been played for absolute fools.

> While there are definitely valid use cases for Actions, I suspect they are fewer and further between than we've led ourselves to believe.

I use Actions to run automated tests and build documentation previews for my open source projects, which I think are very common use cases. I think this could be one of the largest obstacles to a lot of open source projects moving off GitHub, which when ignored like this reduces the credibility of a "How to Ditch GitHub" article. Don't misunderstand - I'm not saying that moving off GitHub can't or shouldn't be done even in these cases, but there's going to be some friction that deters people.

The point about static sites is pretty valid, but I'd point out that the method the article describes is just obfuscated FTP. Unless you really want the domain provided by Codeberg, wouldn't it be better to use a simpler free web host (not a software forge) and just upload your built site onto it?