3 ms·

This. I consider Netlify and Vercel to be more focused versions of AWS for static site hosting. You can host a static site on AWS no problem, but AWS is so mass

This. I consider Netlify and Vercel to be more focused versions of AWS for static site hosting. You can host a static site on AWS no problem, but AWS is so massive that a good chunk of your time is going to be spent just wrangling with the AWS services themselves. What Netlify (and Vercel) did is take all those disparate features across AWS that you use for static site hosting, and package them up with a nice UI and easy access.

latortuga 5y ago
I know I'm nitpicking a bit here but it's more accurate to say that it's static HTML, JS, and CSS hosting. If you want to host images you have to solve that yourself. This part is pretty confusing to me given that both Vercel and Netlify have pretty much 1-click solved the rest of static site hosting.
- nsp 5y ago
  For vercel you can't just throw the images in your `public/` folder or equivalent? I'm almost positive I've done that. Doesn't work for user generated images ofc, though cloudflare has some sort of solution there
  - tbarn 5y ago
    basically do this for sites that are on Netlify too.
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
I host a static site on GCP with buckets, just have a quick script to build my site and use the GCP command line tool to push the site to the buckets, and then I proxy those buckets with Cloudflare and I'm good to go. No need for Vercel / Netlify there. I think when it comes to hosting Next.js or other frontend frameworks that do SSR, then it makes sense to use these. Am I mistaken?