Hacker News Reader

Comment by sluu99 | Hacker News Reader

TL;DR: use Amz S3 to host static content for cheap

I'll agree that its simplified, but it almost might be the spark that gets me to use that free account that's dwindling away. Seems pretty simple. Setup static site/DNS/turn off listing in bucket.

Amazon products create insta-fear in me. It seems very overwhelming. I usually just fall back on DigitalOcean/Linode whenever I consider using S3.

I used to feel the insta-fear. All those EC2 configuration options, not to mention LBE, and separate services for everything I could manually set up.

But S3 is simple. Big buckets, tons of files in flat order. No magic involved. I've been very happy with it and you can still take your computing needs elsewhere.

Ha, thought i was the only one who felt AWS insta-fear. Maybe i should try this just as a learning experiment.

I'm hardly technically competent, and S3 has served me very well for static files. I've dabbled around with their other products to learn a bit here and there and have definitely been overwhelmed, but S3 is really really simple.

I was going to include my subtitle, but the HN title limit got the better of me. It is a little bit of a clickbait headline, I'll give you that. Just no-one tell HuffPo Spoilers: https://twitter.com/huffpospoilers

(side note: this blog post isn't hosted on S3. If it goes down, I will eat a big slice of humble pie)

(side note #2: the title has since changed to make this post make no sense whatsoever)

In addition to being cheap it is reliable. I haven't had any downtime on my sites since switching them over to s3.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com