If Markdown formatting is enough for you, I would look into using a static site generator, like Hugo or Jekyll.

If you want to keep your existing content as static files but same website skeleton and layout instead of copying and editing files you'll copy one and create the layout template. Then content and new posts and pages can be generated from Markdown files. If you set up CI they won't need to run Hugo or what you're using, only push the Markdown files to your Git repository.

Whatever you want to do primarily depends on: Your formatting, styling, functionality, and interfacing needs for the editor, and what you're willing to use or invest for setup.

Hugo runs from a single binary. The source layout is reasonable. With a single layout the folder structure doesn't have to be complex.

I'm not very familiar with alternative [Markdown] static site generators.

You're good to keep your skepticism. If you trust them, the ones creating the tutorial to have vetted to a degree, or that a very popular package like that is vetted to a reasonable degree, you'll just go ahead with it. (Like most people do without questioning it.)

You'll need considerable experience and insight to do good, reasonable risk assessment. Without that, you can either trust and hope in others, or skip the ecosystem and look for alternative technologies.

It's also worth noting that your potential impact is considerable lower if you're only doing local test and development work, not publishing or publicly serving anything. I'm not personally familiar if or to what degree running arbitrary local commands has been limited in the npm ecosystem by now.

If you're fine with or want a two-pane Commander, Double Commander supports FTP.

I feel like a lot of alternative file explorers do!? Pretty sure I've seen it relatively often/regularly.

Double Commander is free and open source. I've been using it for a long time. I'm not sure which one I used before, but could very well have been FreeCommander.

I've liked the idea of it, but IIRC it launched with noticeable delay. Even if it's only one or two seconds, I want to access my files fast.

Linux isn't even a file explorer. Different distros serve different file explorers by default.

I've been using Double Commander for a long time. I can recommend.

I've looked for alternatives occasionally, because I'd prefer some things differently, preferably something I'd be able to source inspect or work on as well, but haven't found anything better.

They make valid points, and maybe it makes sense to always prefer them in their context.

I don't think exceptions always lead to better error handling and messages though. It depends on what you're handling.

A huge bin of exception is detailed and has a lot of info, but often lacks context and concise, obvious error messages. When you catch in outer code, and then have a "inaccessible resource" exception, it tells you nothing. You have to go through the stack trace and analyze which cases could be covered.

If explicit errors don't lead to good handling I don't think you can expect good exception throwing either. Both solutions need adequate design and implementation to be good.

Having a top-level (in their server context for one request or connection) that handles and discards one context while the program continues to run for others is certainly simple. Not having to propagate errors simplifies the code. But it also hides error states and possibilities across the entire stack between outer catch and deep possible throw.

In my (C#) projects I typically make conscious decisions between error states and results and exceptional exceptions where basic assumptions or programming errors exist.

Does the performance cost of error checking/result types they discovered in C++ apply to languages that have native result and option types like Rust?

I would hope they were able to find efficient, performant implementations, and that branch prediction picks the expected non-error branch in most cases.

I recently watched a presentation (on YouTube from a conference/offline presentation) about Systemd which also went into its focus/baseline of Linux, not Unix, and how NT supported a stronger service concept from the beginning. It was quite interesting to learn about the differences and the presenter's assessment and reasoning of the necessity of Systemd or something else that replaces or extends init and rc.d.

• The Tragedy of Systemd

Somehow it’s clunky to use.

huh?

I find developing GitHub CI in YAML clunky.

I don't find configuring a simple service via YAML config, with a preset showing me and explaining what I can do clunky.

Turned into a skeleton in 10 minutes