Why does git usually ignore pictures? Is it normal that if someone downloads and deploys my site, their layout will go wrong and everything will be ugly?

Question

git

I read git lessons. And they usually write that you need to add image extensions to .gitignore. But why do it? Here is the site I wrote. And posted it online. Then I bring it as a portfolio. And I leave a link to the github. A potential employer / his programmer downloads the site, deploys it, layout is going well, everything is ugly, or even incomprehensible. Is it normal? Why don't they upload images to github?

Answer 1

Strange advice, if you consider it categorically.
I will say a trivial thought: you need to version what is the subject of versioning.
That is, if a particular image is an integral part of the project itself, and not an external dependency or external resource, then it should be in the repository.
Immediately found an example in Github: https://github.com/rancher/ui/tree/master/public/a...
The only thing you need to understand is that versioning binaries usually comes with a lot of overhead and there are problems with merging, so if there is an opportunity to exclude images from the [versioned part] of the project, it should be used. The same goes for the database: it's not comme il faut to keep the database dump in the same repository as the code itself, since the history becomes too expensive.

Answer 2

well, if you just want to show off your portfolio, no problem adding those pictures to git.
Why is it usually not added - because then the data on the basis of which changes are tracked "swells" a lot, and there is no need to track changes to these files.

Answer 3

Fill up, why not?
If you have a lot of pictures that change frequently, then for this you can use not git, but other services for versioning binaries. Git, on the other hand, works mainly with text - the concept of merge for binaries does not make sense.
If your pictures are static, but there are just a lot of them, you can also store them separately from git, in specialized repositories for binaries (nexus, Artifactory, corny ftp / sftp) and add them to the project separately from the sources.
Well, if you have a few static images, then you can not strain yourself with a separate service, and just store them in the git - this option is suitable for 90% of sites.

Answer 4

I would take MikroTik 951 or 2011 :)

Answer 5

why netgear? Do you get kickbacks?)))
But in fact, wifi will work under such a load. take at least 2 spaced routers in roaming and reduced channel power.
ubiquity good and inexpensive hardware

Answer 6

The router is enough at the level of Mikrotik 951, and wifi should be done separately, not on Mikrotik, but a separate dual-band point and support from 30 simultaneous clients.

Answer 7

Mikrotik or ubiquity.