[geeks] website/domain hosting, .mac alternatives

[Nadine Miller]

Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Nadine Miller wrote:
> 
>> Lionel Peterson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Nadine Miller wrote:
>>>> Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>>>>> Does anyone have any experience with Dreamhost (www.dreamhost.com)?
>>> <snip>
>>>> Hang around webhostingtalk.com and look at the horror stories.  
>>>> There are a lot of other hosts out there with better reliability at 
>>>> lesser cost.
>>> The problems people have should be tempered with the price and your 
>>> intended use of the service - I have the *cheapest* hosting option 
>>> they have, turned out to be about $50 for two years with a free 
>>> domain registration. My use is for a place to dump random things, and 
>>> I don't need 24x7, 365 access, I just need it up the few hours a 
>>> month I want access ;^)
>>> For a .mac replacement, dreamhost I think it's fine, but YMMV.
>>
>> No argument there, but he did say hosting, not "file dump".  
>> Lunarpages, for example, doesn't allow you to use your shared hosting 
>> account for a file dump.  Obviously, that's hard to police if it's 
>> small stuff, but if you start using it to handle big files and that 
>> usage doesn't "match" your web hosting pattern, they will flag you and 
>> ask you to stop.
> 
> I don't think I need tons of space for files.
> 
> Image storage would likely be the biggest since I might host photos in 
> one domain or URL.
> 
> I would certainly prefer something that stayed up reliably over having a 
> terabyte of storage or something like that.
> 
> Fortunately I'm not under pressure to "do something" right now, so I can 
> take some time to think about it.
> 
We've not had any issues with Lunarpages at all in terms of uptime, just 
some slowness a couple of times.  My only real problem is that they do 
not offer ssh on shared hosting accounts (they also have stated that 
they do not allow outbound ssh connections or "shell scripts" run out of 
cron <rolls eyes>, but whatever).  If the stated purpose of one of your 
websites (even a private site) was to share pictures, hosting your 
images would not go against their TOS.

Basically they are trying to prevent people from tossing up a home page 
and then chewing up the bandwidth/space allocated to the account sharing 
  files between friends.  E.g. passing around innocuously renamed movie 
rips or mp3s.

=Nadine=