11–20 of 357 posts
I'd be interested to know if this is integrated and rebranded nanobox [0]? Or something completely from scratch? [0]: https://nanobox.io/
Bandwidth limits seem excessive? Outbound transfer – 40GiB per app Overall a cool idea. Would personally still prefer GCP Cloud Run which will bill me for request time only and allow me to scale based on requests per second.
https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/app-service/stati...
Digital Ocean has really changed. Just get the feeling leadership or something changed internally to pivot away from being customer/developer focused. I'll stick with gcp.
I can't see any features listed that enable me to control costs to prevent surprise bills. If a site got submitted to HN and hugged to not-to-death-because-it-autoscales then I'd wake up to a bunch of alerts and massive outbound bandwidth bill. I don't want that. I want something that stops that happening.
Digital Ocean has really changed. Just get the feeling leadership or something changed internally to pivot away from being customer/developer focused. I'll stick with gcp.
I'd be interested to know if this is integrated and rebranded nanobox [0]? Or something completely from scratch? [0]: https://nanobox.io/
I am out of the loop, but at a quick loo it seems nanobox provided a way to deploy apps on top of Digital Ocean. Since you said "integrated and rebranded", does that mean DO bought nanobox? Or they just "copied" it*?
Like all DigitalOcean products, the App Platform provides predictable, easy-to-understand pricing that allows you to control costs to prevent surprise bills. I can't see any features listed that enable me to control costs to prevent surprise bills. If a site got submitted to HN and hugged to not-to-death-because-it-autoscales then I'd wake up to a bunch of alerts and massive outbound bandwidth bill. I don't want that…
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.