5 ms·
I had honestly never heard of Netlify. I thought GitHub Pages was the standard, with S3 static hosting a second (more involved) option. EDIT: Googling suggests
by nathankunicki 7y ago
I had honestly never heard of Netlify. I thought GitHub Pages was the standard, with S3 static hosting a second (more involved) option.
EDIT: Googling suggests Netlify offers a build, deploy, hosting pipeline all-in-one box. Which is substantially more than any of the projects mentioned here. These serve a single purpose - simple hosting of static websites.
- xondono 7y agoAlso, github pages require a public repository (or a pro account), Netlify + github doesn’t
- sharcerer 7y agothat's a bummer. I thought now that we have private free repos, websites could be hosted there. Still nice feature. I guess, the public nature definitely generates some trust and also is a good way of showing your work as Github works like a project showcase platform too.
- ztjio 7y agoYou only have to put the static content in the public repo which is no different, visibility-wise, than it is going to be anyway. So who cares? I keep my "uncompiled" site in a private repo that builds and automatically "deploys" by replacing the contents of the public repo and pushing that up. Source is private, final result is public.
- dguo 7y agoNetlify can also be very simple to use. You can literally give them a folder of just HTML, CSS, and JS: https://app.netlify.com/drop https://app.netlify.com/drop
- jeremyjh 7y agoGitHub will build for you if you use Jekyll.
- Phrodo_00 7y agoAnd gitlab will build for you if you tell it how to.