4 ms·

I didn't really have Flynn and Hyper.sh down as really being comparable. I'm not sure how Nanobox fits into the picture. I've been pretty impressed with Hyper.

I didn't really have Flynn and Hyper.sh down as really being comparable. I'm not sure how Nanobox fits into the picture. I've been pretty impressed with Hyper.sh's ease of use and pricing. I didn't find Flynn a good match for my use case. I've also found GCE to be pretty good to work with.

sdomino 10y ago
What is your use case that made Hyper.sh a better choice for you over Flynn.io? Also, if you had to categorize some of these technologies how would you do that, and what are some of the other ones that are similar to those mentioned here that aren't listed?
- charlieegan3 10y ago
  In my mind Flynn has more of an application focus - something comparable to Heroku with git deploys etc. I wanted to run a regular (every 10mins) task. I created a container that had the hyper cli installed that spawned a task container that exited on completion. This worked really well for what I was doing. They're thinking of adding this as a hyper sh feature: https://trello.com/c/JfyGyBKS/45-serverless-cron https://trello.com/c/JfyGyBKS/45-serverless-cron I didn't consider using Flynn. Just didn't really have Flynn down as being for this kind of thing. Of course another difference is that Hyper.sh is a service; Flynn is a project that I need to self host.