Lifestyle

TOPICS:

8/19/08

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73

 ... 940

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

turin

turin

Denver, CO
October 2003

AUG 01, 2008 05:55 PM

I've used web.com for years, but they recently doubled the price of hosting without any warning ("we think you'll agree our services are worth it"), and I've always been irritated by how many randomly-generated passwords and usernames they made me remember-- none of which I could choose myself. I'm fairly certain there was a minotaur somewhere near the center of their god-forsaken web interface. and just to stab me in the kidneys on the way out, they made canceling my plan as difficult as possible.

so I'm looking for a new home, as cheap and user-friendly as possible. any recommendations?

Varuka_Salt

Varuka_Salt

I'm lost
October 2006

AUG 01, 2008 06:07 PM

1and1 web hosting.
Been with them for about a year now. Really cheap, lots of space and features, 0 downtime so far.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Boston, MA
March 2004

AUG 01, 2008 06:24 PM

gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

AUG 01, 2008 06:28 PM

1 on Dreamhost.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

AUG 01, 2008 06:53 PM

How do I shot web host?
Dreamhost is good.

turin

turin

Denver, CO
October 2003

AUG 01, 2008 07:04 PM

MisterLinguist said:
How do I shot web host?



eh?

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

AUG 01, 2008 07:17 PM

It depends on what you need from a web host, if you just want to put stuff on the internets and aren't too concerned about uptimes or features, then yes the cheapest decent host will work for you (DreamHost, 1and1, etc.).

If you need to scale easily, like if you're building a business, or need non-standard libraries for development, or just generally want something more robust, I'd recommend MediaTemple. It's more expensive at $20/mo, but their GridService and all the extras you get with it I think are worth it.

Judging from the fact that you were with web.com though, I'd say that's probably not a concern.

turin

turin

Denver, CO
October 2003

AUG 01, 2008 07:29 PM

AceT said:
It depends on what you need from a web host, if you just want to put stuff on the internets and aren't too concerned about uptimes or features, then yes the cheapest decent host will work for you (DreamHost, Lunarpages, 1and1, etc.).

If you need to scale easily, like if you're building a business, or need non-standard libraries for development, or just generally want something more robust, I'd recommend MediaTemple. It's more expensive at $20/mo, but their GridService and all the extras you get with it I think are worth it.

Judging from the fact that you were with web.com though, I'd say that's probably not a concern.



nah, I'm just looking for some file hosting with fairly high transfer limits and a web page. but cheap isn't the only thing-- I want an intuitive management interface, good customer service, and nobody telling me my username has to be sd&45k!!tw?_AAtr but also 42764590826437eec and sometimes Gr#35x. that might seem minor, but if there's a web host that doesn't annoy me I want to know about it.

unravled

unravled

Portland, OR
August 2003

AUG 01, 2008 08:29 PM

Shiny_metal_ass said:
1and1 web hosting.
Been with them for about a year now. Really cheap, lots of space and features, 0 downtime so far.



That's what I use for my website.

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

AUG 06, 2008 04:09 AM

Here's a good example of why not to go with DreamHost.

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 06, 2008 07:34 AM

No, but I can recommend Donnie Most.


lil_tuffy

lil_tuffy

MODERATOR

San Francisco, CA

AUG 06, 2008 08:34 AM

AceT said:
Here's a good example of why not to go with DreamHost.



I dunno what that means but I use dreamhost.

I was using powweb.com and they sucked so mightily I can't even begin to tell you.

I used verio.com for 10 years. They were very nice but my domain expired and I finally cancelled that service.

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

AUG 06, 2008 09:08 AM

Shiny_metal_ass said:
1and1 web hosting.
Been with them for about a year now. Really cheap, lots of space and features, 0 downtime so far.



Agreed. I've had their 3 domain package since 2006 and not a since problem.

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

AUG 06, 2008 10:32 AM

lil_tuffy said:

AceT said:
Here's a good example of why not to go with DreamHost.



I dunno what that means but I use dreamhost.


It means why the hell are they touching that dude's files?

He goes on to say that he went with DreamHost because of the price, and he now doesn't know what else they've messed with without his permission.

Shal

Shal

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

AUG 06, 2008 11:08 AM

AceT said:

lil_tuffy said:

AceT said:
Here's a good example of why not to go with DreamHost.



I dunno what that means but I use dreamhost.


It means why the hell are they touching that dude's files?

He goes on to say that he went with DreamHost because of the price, and he now doesn't know what else they've messed with without his permission.



Dreamhost seems to work great for most people. The people I've seen have problems are the sort of people who really want the privacy, security, and freedom that comes from a dedicated server, which they're unwilling to pay for.

As someone who has been an admin of an array of servers running vhosting software, I will tell you that it is not *possible* to run the servers without occasionally inconveniencing clients or touching their files -- a site got hacked and is being used to spam the world? Disable the scripts and notify the client. Client installed programs that do bad things? Disable the scripts and notify the client. Etc, etc, etc.

You don't want anyone to touch your stuff, ever, and be able to install and run anything you want? Pay the hosting fees for your very own dedicated server. smile

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

AUG 06, 2008 11:09 AM

AceT said:

lil_tuffy said:

AceT said:
Here's a good example of why not to go with DreamHost.



I dunno what that means but I use dreamhost.


It means why the hell are they touching that dude's files?

He goes on to say that he went with DreamHost because of the price, and he now doesn't know what else they've messed with without his permission.


Considering that they renamed the file to ".disabledByDreamhost" I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they disabled it because he was doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing. I'm sure you know this, but virtualhosting arrangements like theirs are like apartment buildings: the walls are thin and if you fuck things up in your place it fucks things up for the people around you. Maybe he was running an insecure web service, maybe he was using the script to scan every server on the 64.x.x.x netblock in addition to its published uses. Maybe that script was effectively flooding the interface on the box his site is hosted on. Who knows? The thing is, that guy's running a service that can be expected to be huge, and running it for dirt cheap, and he's getting what he paid for. A service that is as big as mobile twitter could be should be on higher-end hosting, or he should quit bitching.

One user's unexplained problem does not mean Dreamhost isn't any good. It doesn't mean that they're going to mess with your files when you're not doing anything wrong. Dreamhost is cheap, and for the price they're great. I know MediaTemple was great in the early 00's, but I also know that they got such high acclaims that they grew way faster than they were prepared for and their support suffered. That was a couple years ago, so I'm sure the growing pains are over, but at the same time, it's a great illustration of the fact that no web host is perfect.

Your host won't always respond to your support requests right away. Your host won't always tell you what's going on. Having a bigger and better host doesn't change these facts. It just means they're less likely to happen.

Kristie

Kristie

Chicago, IL
December 2004

AUG 06, 2008 11:17 AM

I've used http://www.apollohosting.com/ for years with only one 48-hour blip on the radar.

minimalism

minimalism

Argentina
OLD SKOOL

AUG 06, 2008 11:22 AM

bean said:

AceT said:

lil_tuffy said:

AceT said:
Here's a good example of why not to go with DreamHost.



I dunno what that means but I use dreamhost.


It means why the hell are they touching that dude's files?

He goes on to say that he went with DreamHost because of the price, and he now doesn't know what else they've messed with without his permission.



One user's unexplained problem does not mean Dreamhost isn't any good. It doesn't mean that they're going to mess with your files when you're not doing anything wrong.



I dunno, bean. Even though it's only one opinion, it is AceT's opinion so you know it's got to be a fact.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
This message sponsored by Wikipedia.


SupremePizzaMan

SupremePizzaMan

Seattle, WA
September 2003

AUG 06, 2008 11:31 AM

I use Dreamhost and I've only experienced one downtime to my knowledge in about 2 years, and my request for help about that was answered within an hour or so and by then it was fixed.

They double billed me once (and I'm assuming many others), which i found comical more than anything. They sent out an apology afterwards. The web panel you use to manage your domains/hosting/other tiddlybits is really easy, the wikis they have about how to do stuff are pretty helpful. I would go as far as to say, I like them.

Nomi

Nomi

USA
June 2006

AUG 06, 2008 12:43 PM

Has anyone had any positive/negative experiences with Blue Host?

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

AUG 06, 2008 01:40 PM

SupremePizzaMan said:
I use Dreamhost and I've only experienced one downtime to my knowledge in about 2 years, and my request for help about that was answered within an hour or so and by then it was fixed.


Were you around when they had that big downtown issue in summer of '06? Granted that was a while ago and it's caused DH to be much more transparent since, but it's what originally scared me off their service.

And yes this is my personal opinion, but I think that all shared hosting suffers the same problems (that Shalome touched upon). The reason I recommended MediaTemple is they aim to solve this by providing affordable cluster-based grid hosting.

Shal

Shal

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

AUG 06, 2008 01:54 PM

AceT said:

SupremePizzaMan said:
I use Dreamhost and I've only experienced one downtime to my knowledge in about 2 years, and my request for help about that was answered within an hour or so and by then it was fixed.


Were you around when they had that big downtown issue in summer of '06? Granted that was a while ago and it's caused DH to be much more transparent since, but it's what originally scared me off their service.

And yes this is my personal opinion, but I think that all shared hosting suffers the same problems (that Shalome touched upon). The reason I recommended MediaTemple is they aim to solve this by providing affordable cluster-based grid hosting.



The big downtime issue... you mean when the LADWP accidentally cut the grid to all of downtown Los Angeles for a few hours and some stuff got fried? MediaTemple went down then too. So did a shitload of things hosted in LA.

That day sucked so much (the emergency lights didn't come on in my office building and we lit our way down 8 flights of stairs with cellphones). However, it also led to a lot of off-grid capabilities being put in or upgraded at most of the downtown LA hosting centers.

Shal

Shal

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

AUG 06, 2008 01:57 PM

AceT said:
cluster-based grid hosting.



I'm not even going to get started on this one.



Turin, dude, Dreamhost is fine. I just set up a wordpress blog for Tuffy on his Dreamhost account. I recommend Dreamhost to my friends who don't know a whole lot about web stuff and just want something like you're talking about.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

AUG 06, 2008 02:06 PM

AceT said:
And yes this is my personal opinion, but I think that all shared hosting suffers the same problems (that Shalome touched upon). The reason I recommended MediaTemple is they aim to solve this by providing affordable cluster-based grid hosting.


Congratulations on being fooled by MediaTemple's superior marketing. "Cluster-based grid hosting" is not revolutionary, nor does it solve the biggest service challenges faced by hosting companies. Having a massively-scalable virtualhosting grid is fancy, and it's great (in theory) if your mom-and-pop shop suddenly turns into the next eBay, but it's not going to help anyone respond more attentively to customer service demands, nor is it going to help with power and bandwidth issues, or colo center problems. Technical support / customer service is by far the biggest challenge for any virtualhosting provider, and no technical buzzword can help with that.

Edit: Come to think of it, the only real advantage of that sort of grid is that it would allow them to add more customers faster without having to hire more engineers to handle the hardware.

AceT

AceT

Portland, OR
April 2004

AUG 06, 2008 02:08 PM

Shalome said:
The big downtime issue... you mean when the LADWP accidentally cut the grid to all of downtown Los Angeles for a few hours and some stuff got fried? MediaTemple went down then too. So did a shitload of things hosted in LA.

That day sucked so much (the emergency lights didn't come on in my office building and we lit our way down 8 flights of stairs with cellphones). However, it also led to a lot of off-grid capabilities being put in or upgraded at most of the downtown LA hosting centers.


I meant this.

Though like I said before, it's led them to become a lot more transparent about their operations since.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next