Without knowing what the user is actually doing, that's impossible to know. If the user has to input all those fields on a regular basis, then that one screen is the superior UX.
That third screenshot, assuming good keyboard navigation, would likely be a godsend for anyone actually using it every day for regular data entry (well, okay, not without fixes--e.g. the SSN and telephone number split apart as separate text boxes is terrible).
This same mindset is what led Tesla to replace all their driver friendly indicators and controls with a giant shiny touchscreen that is an unmitigated disaster for actual usability.
"The bad guys will do it anyway so we need to do it, too" is the worst kind of fatalism. That kind of logic can be used to justify any number of heinous acts, and I refuse to live in a world where the worst of us are allowed to drag down the rest of us.
My goal is to get a synthesis of search results across multiple engines while eliminating tracking URLs and other garbage. In short it's a better UX for me first and foremost, and self-hosting allows me to customize that experience and also own uptime/availability. Privacy (through elimination of cookies and browser fingerprinting) is just a convenient side effect.
That said, on the topic of privacy, it's absolutely false to say that by self-hosting you get the same effect as using the engines directly. Intermediating my access to those search engines means things like cookies and fingerprinting cannot be used to link my search history to my browsing activity.
Furthermore, in my case I host SearX on a VPS that's independent of my broadband connection which means even IP can't be used to correlate my activity.
Honestly the issue here may be a lack of familiarity with how bare repos work? If that's right, it could be worth experimenting with them if only to learn something new and fun, even if you never plan to use them. If anything it's a good way to learn about git internals!
Anyway, apologies for the pissy coda at the end, I've deleted it as it was unnecessary. Keep on having fun!
Right now I have a NAS. I have to upgrade and maintain my NAS. That's table stakes already. But that alone is sufficient to use bare git repos.
If I add Gitea or whatever, I have to maintain my NAS, and a container running some additional software, and some sort of web proxy to access it. And in a disaster recovery scenario I'm now no longer just restoring some files on disk, I have to rebuild an entire service, restore it's config and whatever backing store it uses, etc.
Even if you don't already have a NAS, setting up a server with some storage running SSH is already necessary before you layer in an additional service like Gitea, whereas it's all you need to store and interact with bare git repos. Put the other way, Gitea (for example) requires me to deploy all the things I need to host bare repos plus a bunch of addition complexity. It's a strict (and non-trivial) superset.
Absolutely. Every service you run, whether containerized or not, is software you have to upgrade, maintain, and back up. Containers don't magically alleviate the need for basic software/service maintenance.
Agreed, which is why you'll find in a subsequent comment I allow for the fact that in a multi-user scenario, a support service on top of Git makes real sense.
Given this post is joking about being ashamed of their code, I can only surmise that, like I'm betting most self-hosters, they're not dealing with a multi-user use case.
Well, that or they want to limit their shame to their close friends and/or colleagues...
This post is about "self-hosting" a service, not using GitHub. That's what I'm responding to.
I'm not saying GitHub isn't valuable. I use it myself. And in any situation involving multiple collaborators I'd probably recommend that kind of tool--whether GitHub or some self-hosted option--for ease of user administration, familiar PR workflows, issue tracking, etc.
But if you're a solo developer storing your code locally with no intention to share or collaborate, and you don't want to use GitHub (as, again, is the case with this post) a self-hosted service adds a ton of complexity for only incremental value.
I suspect a ton of folks simply don't realize that you don't need anything more than ssh and git to push/pull remote git repositories because they largely cargo cult their way through source control.
The idea of "self-hosting" git is so incredibly weird to me. Somehow GitHub managed to convince everyone that Git requires some kind of backend service. Meanwhile, I just push private code to bare repositories on my NAS via SSH.
Honestly, for personal use I just switched to straight Markdown that I edit with Vim (w/ Vimwiki plugin) or Markor on Android and synchronize with Syncthing. Simple, low effort, portable, does enough of what I need to get the job done.
And if I wanna publish a read-only copy online I can always use an SSG.
It has the benefit that the container can't start before the mount point is up without any additional scripts or kludges, so no race conditions or surprise behaviour. Using fstab alone can't provide that guarantee. The other option is Autofs but it's messier to configure and may not ship out of the box on modern distros.
Just use ActivityPub to publish blurbs and links to content available on your Ghost blog. Ghost supports subscriptions so you can then stand up a paywall when people click through.
Nothing about ActivityPub requires you syndicate full article content to the fedi. Hell my own blog doesn't do that, if only because Mastodon is not a good place for long-form content.
Without knowing what the user is actually doing, that's impossible to know. If the user has to input all those fields on a regular basis, then that one screen is the superior UX.