# Improve Backend Curriculum Hosting Description **URL:** \ **Category:** freeCodeCamp Contributors\ **Tags:** contributing\ **Created:** [June 24, 2021, 6:10pm UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411 "2021-06-24T18:10:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sky020](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/freecodecamp/user_avatar/forum.freecodecamp.org/sky020/32/128093_2.png) [@Sky020](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/u/Sky020)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2021, 6:10pm UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411/1 "2021-06-24T18:10:17Z")
> [@Cannot seem to complete this challenge!](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/cannot-seem-to-complete-this-challenge/466328/6): > > You don’t seem to get that message with the `raw.githubusercontent` link. Ah… I think we should add that. * * * > [@Cannot seem to complete this challenge!](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/cannot-seem-to-complete-this-challenge/466328/6): > > switch the order We did discuss this, but specifically decided not to put an external tool like Replit as the first option. So, > [@Cannot seem to complete this challenge!](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/cannot-seem-to-complete-this-challenge/466328/6): > > make the GitHub option more clear. Do you have a suggestion for this? We need to keep it short because of how little people like to read. Do feel free to open an issue/PR where others can also deliberate. ---
**Author:** ![lasjorg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/freecodecamp/user_avatar/forum.freecodecamp.org/lasjorg/32/280761_2.png) [@lasjorg](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/u/lasjorg)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2021, 6:17pm UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411/2 "2021-06-24T18:17:45Z")
> [@Sky020](#): > > We did discuss this, but specifically decided not to put an external tool like Replit as the first option. Can I ask what the argument for this is? Is there an issue you can point me to so you do not have to explain it again? > [@Sky020](#): > > Do you have a suggestion for this? I think this sentence… > When you are done, make sure a working demo of your project is hosted somewhere public. …doesn’t make a clear distinction between something hosted on GitHub and a live site capable of running NodeJS. I know it says “working demo” but looking at the forum that doesn’t seem to be clear enough. ---
**Author:** ![jwilkins.oboe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/freecodecamp/user_avatar/forum.freecodecamp.org/jwilkins.oboe/32/179497_2.png) [@jwilkins.oboe](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/u/jwilkins.oboe)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2021, 6:40pm UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411/3 "2021-06-24T18:40:39Z")
I think it would be nice if there was a sentence that provided campers with free hosting options that run node like Heroku. ---
**Author:** ![lasjorg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/freecodecamp/user_avatar/forum.freecodecamp.org/lasjorg/32/280761_2.png) [@lasjorg](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/u/lasjorg)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2021, 6:52pm UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411/4 "2021-06-24T18:52:42Z")
The fact that the main fCC curriculum… - Does not teach Git. - Has no information about what GitHub is or how it works. - Does not teach local development. …yet links to that as the first option for the projects seem a little suspect to me. To me, it suggests the people involved in creating the curriculum (me, you, us) are taking things for granted because we know about them. Or worse, are catering to people that already know about things we do not teach. I find this problematic from a purely pedagogic perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Sky020](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/freecodecamp/user_avatar/forum.freecodecamp.org/sky020/32/128093_2.png) [@Sky020](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/u/Sky020)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2021, 10:56pm UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411/5 "2021-06-24T22:56:11Z")
> [@lasjorg](#): > > Is there an issue you can point me to so you do not have to explain it again? I cannot find anything on this 🤔 . I cannot remember what platform this happened on, so I could be making this up 🤷‍♂️ . > [@lasjorg](#): > > Can I ask what the argument for this is? Plainly - it is in freeCodeCamp’s better interest not to be seen promoting one external product/tool over another. * * * > [@lasjorg](#): > > it suggests the people involved in creating the curriculum (me, you, us) are taking things for granted because we know about them No argument there. Keep in mind, the next version of the curriculum does have a section on Git, and another section on GitHub. So, whilst this curriculum is not perfect, I would class the next as an improvement, and all that can be asked of the workflow - things take time to improve and iron-out. Until then, what about something like: > a) If you are familiar with self-hosting, clone this GitHub repo… > b) Use our Replit starter… And not even mention the “site-builder”, because that is covered in the self-hosting? ---
**Author:** ![lasjorg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/freecodecamp/user_avatar/forum.freecodecamp.org/lasjorg/32/280761_2.png) [@lasjorg](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/u/lasjorg)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2021, 1:59am UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411/6 "2021-06-25T01:59:44Z")
> [@Sky020](#): > > Plainly - it is in freeCodeCamp’s better interest not to be seen promoting one external product/tool over another. Not to be argumentative but GitHub is an external product/tool as well and has competitors like GitLab and Bitbucket. I also don’t see how the order of the list changes anything in this regard. It just causes more people to pick that option even though they do not fully understand what is involved in using that option. We do the same with the stack we teach, fCC uses the MERN stack and we teach the MERN stack. That is also promoting specific technologies over others. > [@Sky020](#): > > If you are familiar with self-hosting, clone this GitHub repo… Something like that. I wouldn’t mind it being blatantly obvious what knowledge is required for this option. Just so people do not randomly pick it just because it’s first on the list. > [@Sky020](#): > > And not even mention the “site-builder”, because that is covered in the self-hosting? I don’t really get the site builder stuff at all. I’m not even sure what that refers to. I would vote to remove that from the list altogether. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/freecodecamp/original/3X/e/1/e1c433102e34b46dfaa3e15d13ab9a514b127078.svg) [@system](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2021, 2:00pm UTC](https://forum.freecodecamp.org/t/improve-backend-curriculum-hosting-description/466411/7 "2021-12-24T14:00:34Z")
Closed on December 24, 2021, 2:00pm UTC This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.