Seems like a limited/narrow definition of maintaining a website, just because there are different options of platforms and tools used to put content in the user's browser. Ultimately, for the browser, the result is the same, no?
Edit:
Following your edit, I can see an argument being made that maintaining static sites coming with a different workflow than maintaining a CMS and why some may not prefer it --personally, the mutability of the workflow for many of these stacks is the appeal of SSGs for me (especially, more recently 11ty[1] which I'm thinking of porting my personal site to).
My advice is based on my own experience, so obviously I think it is true.
It is my job to know a LOT about putting content in users browsers (from TCP protocol level up to the HTML) but I still think that GitHub pages is too limited for anything but very simple site.
It’s cool to have a static site - it’s not cool to be forced to only have a static site.
I still think that GitHub pages is too limited for anything but very simple site
Oh we wont disagree there, it absolutely has its limitations.
You had originally stated you don't consider these types of stacks to be "running my own site" and I was just wondering what the distinction was, not to necessarily call into question or invalidate your own experiences-if I gave that impression, it's on me to communicate myself a bit better next time.
Simply because it is very limiting.
Seems like a limited/narrow definition of maintaining a website, just because there are different options of platforms and tools used to put content in the user's browser. Ultimately, for the browser, the result is the same, no?
Edit:
Following your edit, I can see an argument being made that maintaining static sites coming with a different workflow than maintaining a CMS and why some may not prefer it --personally, the mutability of the workflow for many of these stacks is the appeal of SSGs for me (especially, more recently 11ty[1] which I'm thinking of porting my personal site to).
[1] https://www.11ty.io/