←back to thread

DigitalOcean App Platform

(pages.news.digitalocean.com)
646 points digianarchist | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mitch-snipline ◴[] No.24698931[source]
I got quite excited at being able to stick my static sites on DO for free, but notice on this page[1] that only the first three are free, then it's $3/m/site.

Perhaps I've been spoiled by services like Netlify. I'd be interested to know what the benefits are of using DO's service over free alternatives.

[1] https://cloud.digitalocean.com/apps?i=6bf7f8

replies(4): >>24699055 #>>24700262 #>>24702563 #>>24711068 #
1. sergeykish ◴[] No.24700262[source]
Netlify Analytics $9/month per site [1], no way to download logs [2]. That said it is easy to deploy, free HTTPS [3] and they support MIME definitions in _headers [4].

I host on Google Cloud Storage, it is not that easy but not that hard either [5], GoAccess for web analytics, no HTTPS. I would be interesting to have a matrix of supported features on different platforms. And how deployment compares to Nginx, letsencrypt, git.

[1] https://www.netlify.com/products/analytics/

[2] https://community.netlify.com/t/download-raw-server-access-l...

[3] https://docs.netlify.com/domains-https/https-ssl/

[4] https://docs.netlify.com/routing/headers/#syntax-for-the-hea...

[5] http://sergeykish.com/google-cloud-storage-static-hosting

replies(1): >>24709269 #
2. mitch-snipline ◴[] No.24709269[source]
The logs would be useful, but there are alternate options that could be used over Netlify's $9/m option. For personal/side projects that price is a no go for me.

I've used GCS before and I agree it's not easy/hard, but certainly not as simple as Netlify.

> I would be interesting to have a matrix of supported features on different platforms. And how deployment compares to Nginx, letsencrypt, git.

That would be useful, especially now that there are more and more options out there. I've seen benchmark comparisons but features would be more useful in my opinion, unless the speed is really poor.