5 ms·

Last time I tried GitHub Pages it got stuck in cache for several hours, could not get the article to update. So switched to Netlify (https://www.netlify.com ht

Last time I tried GitHub Pages it got stuck in cache for several hours, could not get the article to update. So switched to Netlify (https://www.netlify.com https://www.netlify.com) which took about 15 minutes to setup for Jekylll, custom domain and SSL. Was a relief to be in control again.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ryaneager 9y ago
This sounds suspiciously like an ad...
- robinwassen 9y ago
  Noticed that too when i re-read it, I do not work there and are not related to them in any other way than hosting my blog there. But I like their service and dont mind promoting it :)
- orf 9y ago
  Perhaps, but I had exactly the same experience and came to say the same thing. Netlify is pretty damn awesome.
- onion2k 9y ago
  I use Netlify. It's very good.
  - prophesi 9y ago
    Yeah, I'm a fan. I used their Netlify-CMS, and fell in love. You can either have them host your site wherein they put all your static assets on cloudfare, or self-host it all and set up the git push scripts yourself. I went with the latter method and set up a service worker to cache most of the site. The result is a lightning fast static site with dynamic content that is easy for a non-developer to use!
nathan_f77 9y ago
I've used GitHub pages for small things like open source projects and blogs. But I recently switching to putting everything in an S3 bucket, and putting CloudFront or CloudFlare in front. I just didn't like abusing GitHub, and sometimes my site would go down, or the requests would take a really long time. Also, I only pay a few cents to put my site on S3. I was using a very simple deploy script that just ran the aws command line tool, and then made a simple curl request to invalidate the cache in CloudFlare. I've seen Netlify mentioned a lot, and I was about to say that I don't really need it... But I just signed up, and I was immediately convinced to switch over. Their sign up flow is amazing. It really is like a Heroku for static content. The main thing is that I don't have to run my deploy script anymore, and I just `git push`. I could set up the same flow with GitLab CI, but this is just a much nicer service, and it's free. And they do cache invalidation automatically. I don't know how their CDN compares to CloudFlare or CloudFront, but I'm sure it's good enough. P.S. Another thing to mention is that I'm actually generating a static site from my Rails app. So far I really like using Rails helper methods and libraries to generate my static landing page, such as the recaptcha and stripe gems. I'm using "stripe-rails" to define all my plans with a DSL in config/stripe/plans.rb, and then that automatically generates my pricing page HTML. Then I just run `wget --recursive` to download the root page and all of the links. I have my root domain record pointing to a CDN where I host the static files, and then the sign up or sign in links point to the Rails site running on a subdomain, e.g. app.domain.com. I really love this setup, because no matter how much traffic your site gets, the landing page will never go down.
- moeamaya 9y ago
  Similarly didn't understand the value add of Netlify, until I tried it. Now I can't imagine going back to the S3 bucket + Cloudfront setup. BTW on our Middleman Netlify app, the assets generated are served up by a Cloudfront domain, so I'm assuming that's what they are using. You can inspect the page: https://monograph.io/ https://monograph.io/
farslan 9y ago
How can I trust them that they will be not screwing me with their free tier? Their next tier is $45 per month, seriously? Why not take $5/10/20 per month and at least earn my trust. I'm not going to use anything for free. If it's free either they burning VC money or I'm the product.
- user5994461 9y ago
  wordpress is free, always been and provide all of this.
  - rovr138 9y ago
    wordpress.com has a free tier, but not everything. https://wordpress.com/pricing/ https://wordpress.com/pricing/ Same thing here.
- freehunter 9y ago
  I cannot imagine hosting a static site with a company that only has a free tier, a $50/mo tier, and a $290/mo tier. $290/mo to host a Jekyll blog? What the fuck? Either it's a scam, or it's meant to be used for far more than a Jekyll blog. So the parent's suggestion that "if you're frustrated with Github Pages, use this super expensive and overengineered service instead" comes off to me like the worst kind of advertising. They're not even in the same league. Netlify is designed for something far more than Github Pages.
  - jameskegel 9y ago
    What puts me at quite a dilemma is the question, if I were a wordpress blog would I pay 45 a month for wordpress? How about with no plugins? OK, now how about for 290 a month? Suddenly just learning to deploy without netlify, on your own, becomes a lot more economical than paying the convenience tax.
kaushalmodi 9y ago
+1 for Netlify. I've had 2 complicated customer service questions, and they resolved them brilliantly. I am using the free tier. I use Hugo for my static sites: - https://scripter.co https://scripter.co - https://ox-hugo.netlify.com https://ox-hugo.netlify.com - https://ox-hugo.netlify.com/test https://ox-hugo.netlify.com/test (yes, that's a different Hugo site than above)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ryaneager 9y ago

This sounds suspiciously like an ad...

robinwassen 9y ago
Noticed that too when i re-read it, I do not work there and are not related to them in any other way than hosting my blog there. But I like their service and dont mind promoting it :)
orf 9y ago
Perhaps, but I had exactly the same experience and came to say the same thing. Netlify is pretty damn awesome.
onion2k 9y ago
I use Netlify. It's very good.
- prophesi 9y ago
  Yeah, I'm a fan. I used their Netlify-CMS, and fell in love. You can either have them host your site wherein they put all your static assets on cloudfare, or self-host it all and set up the git push scripts yourself. I went with the latter method and set up a service worker to cache most of the site. The result is a lightning fast static site with dynamic content that is easy for a non-developer to use!

nathan_f77 9y ago

I've used GitHub pages for small things like open source projects and blogs. But I recently switching to putting everything in an S3 bucket, and putting CloudFront or CloudFlare in front. I just didn't like abusing GitHub, and sometimes my site would go down, or the requests would take a really long time. Also, I only pay a few cents to put my site on S3. I was using a very simple deploy script that just ran the aws command line tool, and then made a simple curl request to invalidate the cache in CloudFlare. I've seen Netlify mentioned a lot, and I was about to say that I don't really need it... But I just signed up, and I was immediately convinced to switch over. Their sign up flow is amazing. It really is like a Heroku for static content. The main thing is that I don't have to run my deploy script anymore, and I just `git push`. I could set up the same flow with GitLab CI, but this is just a much nicer service, and it's free. And they do cache invalidation automatically. I don't know how their CDN compares to CloudFlare or CloudFront, but I'm sure it's good enough. P.S. Another thing to mention is that I'm actually generating a static site from my Rails app. So far I really like using Rails helper methods and libraries to generate my static landing page, such as the recaptcha and stripe gems. I'm using "stripe-rails" to define all my plans with a DSL in config/stripe/plans.rb, and then that automatically generates my pricing page HTML. Then I just run `wget --recursive` to download the root page and all of the links. I have my root domain record pointing to a CDN where I host the static files, and then the sign up or sign in links point to the Rails site running on a subdomain, e.g. app.domain.com. I really love this setup, because no matter how much traffic your site gets, the landing page will never go down.

moeamaya 9y ago
Similarly didn't understand the value add of Netlify, until I tried it. Now I can't imagine going back to the S3 bucket + Cloudfront setup. BTW on our Middleman Netlify app, the assets generated are served up by a Cloudfront domain, so I'm assuming that's what they are using. You can inspect the page: https://monograph.io/ https://monograph.io/

farslan 9y ago

How can I trust them that they will be not screwing me with their free tier? Their next tier is $45 per month, seriously? Why not take $5/10/20 per month and at least earn my trust. I'm not going to use anything for free. If it's free either they burning VC money or I'm the product.

user5994461 9y ago
wordpress is free, always been and provide all of this.
- rovr138 9y ago
  wordpress.com has a free tier, but not everything. https://wordpress.com/pricing/ https://wordpress.com/pricing/ Same thing here.
freehunter 9y ago
I cannot imagine hosting a static site with a company that only has a free tier, a $50/mo tier, and a $290/mo tier. $290/mo to host a Jekyll blog? What the fuck? Either it's a scam, or it's meant to be used for far more than a Jekyll blog. So the parent's suggestion that "if you're frustrated with Github Pages, use this super expensive and overengineered service instead" comes off to me like the worst kind of advertising. They're not even in the same league. Netlify is designed for something far more than Github Pages.
- jameskegel 9y ago
  What puts me at quite a dilemma is the question, if I were a wordpress blog would I pay 45 a month for wordpress? How about with no plugins? OK, now how about for 290 a month? Suddenly just learning to deploy without netlify, on your own, becomes a lot more economical than paying the convenience tax.

kaushalmodi 9y ago

+1 for Netlify. I've had 2 complicated customer service questions, and they resolved them brilliantly. I am using the free tier. I use Hugo for my static sites: - https://scripter.co https://scripter.co - https://ox-hugo.netlify.com https://ox-hugo.netlify.com - https://ox-hugo.netlify.com/test https://ox-hugo.netlify.com/test (yes, that's a different Hugo site than above)