astro vs ghost choice
Origin
At the beginning, I seriously considered Ghost.
Beautiful admin UI. Integrated newsletter. Ready memberships. Everything worked with a docker-compose up.
Then I read Ghost(Pro)‘s terms of service. I saw where subscriber data ended up. I realised I was renting space, not owning it.
So I chose Astro. And OpenBSD. And relayd. And httpd.
Six months later, I can say: it was the right choice. Not because it is better. Because it is mine.
The Connection
Why does the Monolith archive this? Because the choice of stack is not technical. It is political.
Ghost gives you convenience in exchange for control. Astro gives you control in exchange for complexity.
I chose control.
Every line of httpd.conf I wrote, every relayd error I debugged, every SSL certificate I renewed with acme-client… all of this is knowledge I own.
With Ghost, if the project changes license, I am stuck. With Astro, if the project dies, my site continues to work. Forever.
The Challenge
The challenge was accepting the learning curve.
Ghost: 1 hour to be online. Monolith: 6 months to be online.
But after 1 hour with Ghost, you know nothing. After 6 months with the Monolith, you know exactly how every layer works.
The crucial question is: do you want to publish content or own the infrastructure?
I chose both.
Peace of Mind
Now that I have written this, I have clarified the value of my time:
- I did not “lose” 6 months. I invested 6 months in sovereignty.
- I am not “complicated”. I am aware.
- I am not “behind”. I am independent.
Peace of Mind comes from knowing that no one can turn off my digital space. No terms changes. No price increases. No deplatforming.
The Monolith is mine. And what is mine, I can maintain forever.
Technical Note:
- Stack: OpenBSD 7.8 + httpd + relayd + Astro + Node.js
- Cost: zero (only Hetzner VPS)
- Maintenance: cron for SSL, backup, log rotation
- Sovereignty: 100% (no third parties)
- Trigger: if a service requires “accept terms”, evaluate if you are renting or owning