Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by gtirloni on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @12:11PM
(#19982683)
I feel like Netlify has set the standard in this area now so I'm curious to learn what's different when I see these projects mentioned here.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by nathankunicki on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @01:09PM
(#19983191)
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.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by dguo on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @03:06PM
(#19984397)
Netlify 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
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by xondono on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @01:51PM
(#19983612)
Also, github pages require a public repository (or a pro account), Netlify + github doesn’t
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by sharcerer on Thursday May 23, 2019 @12:50AM
(#19988585)
that'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.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by ztjio on Thursday May 23, 2019 @02:09AM
(#19988938)
You 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.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by jeremyjh on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @05:39PM
(#19985829)
GitHub will build for you if you use Jekyll.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by Phrodo_00 on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @09:01PM
(#19987307)
And gitlab will build for you if you tell it how to.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by weego on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @12:22PM
(#19982778)
in the case of scar you get to maintain your own AWS infrastructure. Which isn't really the goal of most people wanting a quick static site.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by davchana on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @05:43PM
(#19985869)
I have always and only used Gitlab Pages, except one test site at Netifly, that too from a Gitlab Repo. Gitlab Pages are super easy, static, need one .yml file, one cname and txt dns record.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by r3bl on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @06:10PM
(#19986100)
GitLab introduced their Pages relatively recently, maybe three years ago. The other two (Netlify and GitHub pages) are a few years older. I also vaguely remember something about it first being available in GitLab's enterprise edition, and later on being ported to the community version.
Not saying that there's anything wrong with it in particular, but it arrived a bit too late to set the standard for anything. People compared it to Netlify even when it was first announced.
Re:Show HN: Scar – Static websites with HTTPS, a global CDN,...
by alfredxing on Wednesday May 22, 2019 @04:59PM
(#19985432)
Netlify is a great tool, my biggest issue with it (and why I continue to use GitHub Pages) is that the "Global CDN" is a cluster of DigitalOcean nodes, which I don't trust as much as e.g. Fastly in terms of performance and reliability.
(Note: that info is from anecdotally looking at Netlify site IPs, I could be wrong)