PDA

View Full Version : Looking to actually do a site


White Gardens
05-28-2009, 09:20 AM
So I'm wondering who some of the better web-hosting sites are. Any thoughts?

fl-landscapes
05-28-2009, 09:24 AM
I like Intuit. They developed Quickbooks software and also host web sites. I like them a lot. www.intuit.com

Kiril
05-28-2009, 11:05 AM
bluehost is getting high praise of late.

Team-Green L&L
05-28-2009, 11:17 AM
I swear by Apthost.com myself. Not many issues and little downtime. I'll recommend them.

Inspira
05-28-2009, 11:39 AM
Stay away from Intuit, had some bad experiences with them. Check out Rochen.

mikey.hill
05-28-2009, 07:02 PM
lunarpages ... I'm a web developer and deal with them alot ... do not use intuit under any circumstances though.

maintenanceman
05-29-2009, 10:18 AM
Bluehost here, no problems.

topsites
05-30-2009, 02:11 AM
The best explanation I have heard is, hosting is wild.

White Gardens
05-30-2009, 09:12 AM
Thanks For the posts guys.

I'm still trying to figure on what I'm doing. I dropped the yellow-page add this year and I finally have a good enough portfolio to post pics on a site.

Thanks.

Camo_Duck
08-11-2009, 05:25 PM
I am a web designer & I use dreamhost.com (http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?329590)
I did a ton of searching and researching before choosing them. I have been with them a number of years now & have no plan on leaving

Its really good bang for your buck, they have decent tech support, their back end is simple to use, it supports all the features you would ever need....
including upgrading to a VPS should you ever need it.

All the hosting is carbon neutral, being in the nature business ...I think it might be to your advantage marketing wise to be on a green server :)
you can see an example of their green hosting verification HERE (http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?329590/green.cgi?camoduck.com)

Check them out, if you decide to use them use:
CAMO25OFF as a discount code and it will get you an additional $25.00 off the annual hosting....

The only suggestion I ever make about any hosting service is to buy a year at a time (not more), they might be great now...but you never know what next year will be like, new management or they get bought out...these days you never know.

I have also heard good things about bluehost, as mentioned in other posts, I seriously considered using them myself, the pricing and features are similar
to dreamhost, but the back-end is much more user friendly at dreamhost than bluehost, that was the deciding factor for me, I host alot of the sites I design on my dreamhost VPS right next to my own site, and I wanted a simple straightforward process that did not waste my time (the opposite of using godaddy for example)

Whatever you decide you cant do much better than those 2, I do not suggest you use godaddy for hosting.... they are great for domain registration (ONLY), but when it comes to hosting they charge too much & will nickel and dime you to death, and working with the back-end is a giant pain in the grass!

-----
Bob Rooney

mikey.hill
08-11-2009, 06:31 PM
If you guys want to know what the big boys use it's not shared hosting. Why? because they put 100-200 websites on the same server and whenever another site thats on the same server your on has issues, your site has issues as well. Cheap - Yes, but good quality -no.

Shared Hosting = having a cubicle in a building
VPS Hosting = having your own floor in a building

I do quite a bit of server administration, programming and development and for my clients who need a good web server that's cheap I would never recommend any shared host. Instead check out prgmr.com and linode.com ... Linode is around 19/month for a VPS server and Prgmr.com is about 8/month for a slightly better VPS. Both of these require an initial setup which for me takes about 1-2 hours, for someone less experienced it can take a while. I prefer linode.com because they have a nice control panel that lets you manage the details of your server, make backups, dns, accounts etc... Linode/prgmr.com and slicehost(linode but costs more) is the best value per buck if your willing to do a little work initially. You have full control over your server and what gets installed, you can pick and OS(rhel, centos, debian etc...), manage your DNS, etc...

If you guys really want good hosting sign up for your VPS at linode and contact me. I do full server installations for $100(I charge clients through the companies I work for 200 for the same install).

I install the following:
Linux Kernel + OS(centos, fedora, debian or ubuntu)
Nginx, lighttpd or apache web server
Mysql or postresql
sftp(ftp is insecure - all ftp clients have an sftp option so this requires no change to you)
PHP
Setup for 1 website(this server can handle additional sites easily - my linode runs about 10 at any one time without a hiccup).
GIT/SVN access if you need it.
Server monitoring
database,webroot backups like any server
For email I do NOT recommend using your server. You should check into using google apps ... it's free ... they have mobile apps for you cell ... excellent spam protection and pretty much way more than any host will be able to offer. If you're not interested in using google apps I can setup zimbra(defacto standard replacement for MS exchange) for an additional fee. They have a nice web interface but it really eats away at your webservers ability to do what it's meant for(host web pages).

Anyways just thought I'd put that out there. PM me if you'd like to set one up.

Inspira
08-11-2009, 09:50 PM
Hey Camo - you seem to be big on Joomla, you should check out Rochen. They're one of the top hosts in the Joomla community and have a great reseller program for designers.

Camo_Duck
08-11-2009, 10:36 PM
Thanks Inspira...

Appreciate the heads up...I do prefer to use Joomla, it makes it so I dont have to reinvent the wheel every time I create a site that helps me stay very competitive, & it makes for easy updates for the site owners.

Im pretty happy over at dreamhost.com (http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?329590) I have a virtual private server over there & give my clients a years free hosting on it with their design job. If I ever get unhappy with it Ill put Rochen on the list when I go shopping :)

Regarding what Mikey said a VPS is killer but for 99% of small business websites shared hosting is just fine, using his analogy most small businesses don't need an entire floor, a cubicle works.... if it turns out not to be enough.... great, business is booming and you can always upgrade :)

-----
Bob Rooney

Inspira
08-11-2009, 10:49 PM
I also like to use Joomla, easy to set up, easy to skin and easy for clients to make changes. They also have some great extensions.

Agreed on the hosting. A quality shared host will be able to isolate sites with "issues" so they won't affect others.

mikey.hill
08-11-2009, 10:53 PM
Regarding what Mikey said a VPS is killer but for 99% of small business websites shared hosting is just fine, using his analogy most small businesses don't need an entire floor, a cubicle works.... if it turns out not to be enough.... great, business is booming and you can always upgrade :)

-----
Bob Rooney


I agree that shared hosting is a great deal, but when you look at things from a security perspective as well as site responsiveness and the 'promises' that shared hosts make you it's really the bottom of the barrel. Yeah, if your in a pinch and thats all you can afford go for it. But for a business, 20/month is nothing for quality hosting that is both secure and provides quality responsiveness.

The security issues I'm talking about are:
1. With shared hosting many users have access to common kernel files via PHP/ASP/Perl etc... these platforms are on every server(unless you run a VPS/dedicated and choose not to run these apps) and time and time again a security hole has been discovered that allows malicious people access to your files, including your website files. It's no suprise to me when I hear about the latest round of viruses that are spread across websites that most of them are on shared hosts(and like today's wordpress debacle).

2. Session data - most apps store session data in /tmp or some alternate but common location. If one host on your server has access to sessions all hosts have the same access. This won't apply to most websites, but say for instance your running an application like wordpress or joomla. Session data store in /tmp can be replicated by a user that knows what they're doing - and this includes the possiblity of taking over your users sessions and reading their personal data.

3. Browsing the filesystem via PHP/ASP. Some hosts block these commands but many do not to give the impression that they are a full functioning web server. Not only does this expose your filesystem it allows for users to read permissions for those files and target those that are insecure.

Bottom line - shared hosting is like being in a cubicle. Everyone in the office(all the other website owners and anyone who has access to the server) can go through your filesystem, your users information and with a little bit of knowledge can change your files. I'm sorry but it's just a bad system for serving websites ... cheap though. Do yourself a favor and get a vps.

Kiril
08-12-2009, 09:42 AM
IMO, there is absolutely no reason for any site you will see a landscape related company put together that will ever need a dedicated server. Lets be realistic people, we are talking for most a sites a handful of static pages, not a full blow store front with ecommerce.

@mikey

While your concerns are valid, they are easily handled on a shared host by someone who knows what they are doing. Please stop trying to sell people products they don't need!

mikey.hill
08-12-2009, 05:15 PM
IMO, there is absolutely no reason for any site you will see a landscape related company put together that will ever need a dedicated server. Lets be realistic people, we are talking for most a sites a handful of static pages, not a full blow store front with ecommerce.

@mikey

While your concerns are valid, they are easily handled on a shared host by someone who knows what they are doing. Please stop trying to sell people products they don't need!

Haha... I'm not trying to sell anyone anything...If you look at my post I clealy gave away my hosting provider which is something would no do for someone I was trying to sell hosting to...anyone who can read and has a little patience can setup a server there...I was simply informing people on what guys like me and other developers/admins who know what how bad shared hosting is and what good hosting entails... I am a unix/linux admin(I manage about 20+ linux/BSD servers) and know the dangers of shared hosting and have watched as many of clients use them and have their site at some point crash and burn. Which would you rather pay? 20/month for shared hosting that's secure and reliable or 5/month for shared + the cost of repairing your website at whatever your designer/developer/admin charges + downtime + additional fees if you have to move hosts + the cost of bad site performance at peak times. It's a common misconception that shared hosting is secure and 'good enough' but it's a bad frame of mind.

VPS is not a dedicated server. VPS is a virtualized environment of which there are no links to/from each others operating system. I'm sorry but you are wrong and time and time again it has been shown that shared hosting is the bottom of the barrel and is really a bad solution. You really do get what you pay for and it cracks me up to see people signing up for these services left and right simply because people like you who don't understand it are telling them so.

Kiril
08-12-2009, 09:26 PM
Funny, I know hordes of people on shared servers that haven't had a single problem due to the items you mentioned. BTW, VPS is still run on the same "box", so with respect to resources, they are still shared. So actually, it is your analogy of cubical to floor that is wrong.

All that aside, lets see a show of hands for the number of people running dynamic sites.

mikey.hill
08-12-2009, 09:42 PM
Funny, I know hordes of people on shared servers that haven't had a single problem due to the items you mentioned. BTW, VPS is still run on the same "box", so with respect to resources, they are still shared. So actually, it is your analogy of cubical to floor that is wrong.

All that aside, lets see a show of hands for the number of people running dynamic sites.

VPS although on the same box is not shared... Paravirtualization is an entirely different concept that has nothing in common w/ shared hosting. Check out wikipedia UML or XEN virtualization but in short the benefits of using virtualization(para which is most commonly used):

lower overhead than full virtualization
each user can have his/her own kernel and modules
kernel.org kernels support running under Xen (as a DomU) since 2.6.23

and with credit scheduling:
work-conserving
very lightweight
accounting thread passes out credits periodically
weight=memory
dom0 weight

This is exactly the reason why services such as amazon aws, ecs have had such success in this environment. Comparing shared hosting to a virtualized env. is like comparing nail clippers and lawnmowers.

Kiril
08-13-2009, 07:29 AM
Same hardware = same resources. It not only is similar, with respect to a given server, it is almost exactly the same. Only so much CPU and memory to go around now isn't there. All the accounts must share a given servers hardware resources, be they virtual or not. This is what kills shared servers, lack of resources .... and as an administrator you damn well know this.

Also, regardless of what you want people to think here, running virtual hosts consumes more resources than not running them. Yes, there are ways to make it faster, and it is most certainly more secure, however it does require more server hardware resources, and in many cases is considerably slower than running without virtualization.

You still have not presented a logical argument why a company with a handful of static pages needs to fork out the extra cash for a VPS.

mikey.hill
08-13-2009, 11:05 AM
Same hardware = same resources. It not only is similar, with respect to a given server, it is almost exactly the same. Only so much CPU and memory to go around now isn't there. All the accounts must share a given servers hardware resources, be they virtual or not. This is what kills shared servers, lack of resources .... and as an administrator you damn well know this.

Also, regardless of what you want people to think here, running virtual hosts consumes more resources than not running them. Yes, there are ways to make it faster, and it is most certainly more secure, however it does require more server hardware resources, and in many cases is considerably slower than running without virtualization.

I really think you need to read up on virtualization, you've mis-interpreted what i've been saying and your either mis-informed or just stubborn for trying to compare shared/virtual hosting. It's totally different, and shared has nothing on VPS. You got a shared host or does anyone here have one that I can mirror? We can put this to the hard knocks test.

Kiril
08-13-2009, 11:41 AM
Dude, I run a virtual windows guest on a linux host on nearly a daily basis ... I don't think I need to read up on it, but thanks for your concern.

So let me get this straight ... are you saying that if I install 10 virtual guests on a host system they do not share the same hardware resources (i.e. I have a fully dedicated CPU and memory for each guest).

Inspira
08-13-2009, 11:50 AM
I've been running on shared hosting for over ten years now. Probably twenty or so websites. NEVER had an issue. One account was hacked into, but the guy's password was abelincoln (it happened on President's day, lol).

I'll say it again. Stick to a reputable host and you'll be fine. A lot of guys look to here for advice on this stuff, and I think it's important to note that the comment on shared hosting being "the bottom of the barrel" is just your opinion, one that I, among others, disagree with.

Kiril
08-13-2009, 12:49 PM
I've been running on shared hosting for over ten years now. Probably twenty or so websites. NEVER had an issue. One account was hacked into, but the guy's password was abelincoln (it happened on President's day, lol).

I'll say it again. Stick to a reputable host and you'll be fine. A lot of guys look to here for advice on this stuff, and I think it's important to note that the comment on shared hosting being "the bottom of the barrel" is just your opinion, one that I, among others, disagree with.

The issues mickey has raised are valid ones for dynamic sites, but if you properly set the server up (both server admin and users), they become a relative non-issue the majority of the time. The point I am making here is VPS or "shared", they are both being hosted on the same box, and therefore use the same hardware resources. Yes, you may get better server hardware utilization with VPS, but like it or not, that hardware is still being shared.

The other point, and the more important one, is that for most people here that have websites, they are nothing more than 5-10 static HTML pages which rarely, if ever, change after the initial design. There is absolutely no need for these people to fork out the money for a VPS. CHMOD your files to 0444 and be done with it!

mikey.hill
08-14-2009, 09:15 AM
The issues mickey has raised are valid ones for dynamic sites, but if you properly set the server up (both server admin and users), they become a relative non-issue the majority of the time. The point I am making here is VPS or "shared", they are both being hosted on the same box, and therefore use the same hardware resources. Yes, you may get better server hardware utilization with VPS, but like it or not, that hardware is still being shared.

The other point, and the more important one, is that for most people here that have websites, they are nothing more than 5-10 static HTML pages which rarely, if ever, change after the initial design. There is absolutely no need for these people to fork out the money for a VPS. CHMOD your files to 0444 and be done with it!

Kiril, I never implied that VPS servers don't have shared aspects ... but it's at a hardware level, not OS level. That has nothing in common because Xen/Uml are capable of partitioning off CPU/Mem usage so that each instance receives exactly what's being payed for unlike shared hosting which shares on both the hardware and software layers. 2nd - If your telling me that an $8/month VPS(or 20 if you need a pretty control panel) isn't worth the added value of site responsiveness then you should try telling that to your next client who's trying to pull up your page on a mobile device or an inferior connection. It's a common UI mistake that we assume that people that are visiting our sites have 10M connections(and I'm not saying you don't know this, but I don't think you've taken that into account here) when actually a majority of people who visit our sites, even small ones have vastly inferior capabilities. That makes it our responsiblity as providers to not be the bottleneck. As important as websites are to advertising and business it's also equally important to take the initiative to provide the highest quality available even if it costs a few bucks more per month. Shared hosting has had it's hayday, but the availability and dramatic cost decreases of virtual hosting combined with the performance increases make high quality hosting possible for business' on a budget.

Also you asked for a raise of hands for who has a dynamic site ... I was just digging through the archives looking for a static site to pull down onto my server to compare the two. Amazing how there wasn't a single one in 3 pages worth of posts that wasn't reliant on either asp or php... One was running joomla and 2 others had exposed php scripts that I actually downloaded on to my desktop(I'll be p.m.'ing them before they have some serious issues). I would have looked further but I have to work so maybe later tonight I'll find a static site on here to grab. I'll tell you this much tho, I ran speed tests(with yslow) and 2/3 sites had load times in excess of 15 seconds on my 10M↑ 5↓ connection. I'm going to test the mobile speed on my way to work.

One other thing, I don't see you running much w/ 0444 unless you intended result is a 403 error.

mikey.hill
08-14-2009, 09:37 AM
Dude, I run a virtual windows guest on a linux host on nearly a daily basis ... I don't think I need to read up on it, but thanks for your concern.

So let me get this straight ... are you saying that if I install 10 virtual guests on a host system they do not share the same hardware resources (i.e. I have a fully dedicated CPU and memory for each guest).

Haha, I just read this comment...I'm going to be late for work but this is worth it as I'll get to show my co-workers what now 'qualifies' as virtualization.

You run a windows host on linux so Like you know how to run virtualbox. Sorry man but your way out of your league here if you honestly believe that running vmware qualifies you as an expert on virtualization. Vmware/virtualbox is a very watered down method of virtualizing that is really a meld of two different OS's running inside an OS. True virtualization occurs thru a hypervisor which is basically runs at the hardware level. The OS's run on top of that next to each other not inside an OS like rhel, debian(ubuntu to the new converts) and arch.

And yes you are fully wrong because you don't know the first thing about virtualization most likely due to the fact you probably typed apt-get install virtualbox-ose in your command line. The hypervisor that powers Xen PARTITIONS OFF HARDWARE RESOURCES. if you have 4 cores and 16G of memory and the server is equally allocated each instance is guaranteed their 1 core of CPU and 4G of memory. Since this is done at the hardware level those restrictions are easily enforced as opposed to doing this with something like virtualbox who's software management allocated memory based on available memory that it doesn't think will effect the host and the rest it pulls from swap. As far as cpu cycles it's not even close to guaranteed - in fact it's more of a crap shoot in this regard. This is a fundamental problem w/ OS based virtualization and the exact reason why your claiming that virtualization is often times slower that shared hosting - your not running a virtual enviroment. Your doing software emulation of virtualization. IF you want to learn more about REAL virtualization i'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

Kiril
08-14-2009, 11:33 AM
Kiril, I never implied that VPS servers don't have shared aspects

Really now ... that is exactly what you implied.

I agree that shared hosting is a great deal, but when you look at things from a security perspective as well as site responsiveness and the 'promises' that shared hosts make you it's really the bottom of the barrel.

Shared Hosting = having a cubicle in a building
VPS Hosting = having your own floor in a building

In fact, the second statement more accurately shows the difference between a shared (native or VPS) and a truly dedicated server (i.e. single account per box).

.. but it's at a hardware level, not OS level. That has nothing in common because Xen/Uml are capable of partitioning off CPU/Mem usage so that each instance receives exactly what's being payed for unlike shared hosting which shares on both the hardware and software layers.

Still sharing resources, hence a SHARED SERVER! You can play all the semantic games you want, but if you have more than one account per box, it is a shared server.

2nd - If your telling me that an $8/month VPS(or 20 if you need a pretty control panel) isn't worth the added value of site responsiveness then you should try telling that to your next client who's trying to pull up your page on a mobile device or an inferior connection. It's a common UI mistake that we assume that people that are visiting our sites have 10M connections(and I'm not saying you don't know this, but I don't think you've taken that into account here) when actually a majority of people who visit our sites, even small ones have vastly inferior capabilities. That makes it our responsiblity as providers to not be the bottleneck. As important as websites are to advertising and business it's also equally important to take the initiative to provide the highest quality available even if it costs a few bucks more per month. Shared hosting has had it's hayday, but the availability and dramatic cost decreases of virtual hosting combined with the performance increases make high quality hosting possible for business' on a budget.

So you are saying that people who have a handful of static pages, which may get 100 unique visits per month by actual potential customers need to fork out $20/month for VPS? The sites most people have here are a FAR cry from mission critical ... you need to get a grip on what is going on here with respect to the typical website. BTW, I am curious why you are even posting here? If you do not work in the green industry, and you are not trying to sell something without becoming a sponsor, what are you doing here other than trying to sell people on a service that most of them have no need for?

I'm not disagreeing with you that VPS is a far better solution to your typical "shared" solution, but the vast majority of the time the additional cost is simply NOT justified! Just because you have hopped onto this relatively new way of running shared web servers doesn't mean everyone else has too. Get over yourself already!

Furthermore, if VPS is vastly superior to your typical shared host (in security and performance), then why charge more for the service? If anything it should come in at a lower price point because you are getting more for less with respect to the data center.

Also you asked for a raise of hands for who has a dynamic site ... I was just digging through the archives looking for a static site to pull down onto my server to compare the two. Amazing how there wasn't a single one in 3 pages worth of posts that wasn't reliant on either asp or php...

Funny, because just about every site I have reviewed, and almost every request for how to build a site has predominantly been for static pages. You reviewed 3 sites .... I have reviewed no less than 30-40 sites from people that use this site, the majority of which are static pages.

I'll tell you this much tho, I ran speed tests(with yslow) and 2/3 sites had load times in excess of 15 seconds on my 10M↑ 5↓ connection. I'm going to test the mobile speed on my way to work.

That could be due to a wide variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with the host.

One other thing, I don't see you running much w/ 0444 unless you intended result is a 403 error.

Really now .... you can't read a static HTML file with those permissions, and you claim to be a administrator. :dizzy: You might want to try it sometime, you might learn something. If you need more information, I will be happy to point you in the right direction.

Oh and FYI, I never claimed to be an expert on virtualization, however I am also not an ignorant fool either. You have NO idea what I have run (now and in the past) for virtualization software, so I suggest you stop pretending like you do.

mikey.hill
08-14-2009, 12:06 PM
....randomness???...

I'm not going to give you a beginners course in CS here. You don't understand how it works and your clearly to hard headed to see that. All your doing now is pulling up random tidbits of info and stringing them together with fictional glue. Why, I have no idea - maybe you just have too much time on your hands or maybe your mom grounded you or something.

Regardless, I'm not going to feed your ego or explain to you the reason that I'm on this forum, but instead suggest you evaluate your acumen and think twice before you get into a debate of which you have limited knowledge of the topic.

Kiril
08-14-2009, 01:25 PM
I'm not going to give you a beginners course in CS here. You don't understand how it works and your clearly to hard headed to see that. All your doing now is pulling up random tidbits of info and stringing them together with fictional glue. Why, I have no idea - maybe you just have too much time on your hands or maybe your mom grounded you or something.

Regardless, I'm not going to feed your ego or explain to you the reason that I'm on this forum, but instead suggest you evaluate your acumen and think twice before you get into a debate of which you have limited knowledge of the topic.

Good.

I suggest then you stop making ridiculous statements .... everyone needs to be buy the VPS hosting package .... you can't read a static HTML file with 0444 permissions without generating a 403 error ..... a server box with multiple accounts is not sharing resources ..... full virtualization is watered down ... VMware only offers a full virtualization solution .... full virtualization does not use a hypervisor (you obviously have forgotten about hosted hypervisors) :rolleyes:

Do you even bother to read the stuff you are writing? Also, before you go make uninformed statements about a piece of software (VMware) you might want to check up on its capabilities. You do realize that VMI support has been available since kernel version 2.6.21

I think it is perhaps you who needs a refresher course in basic CS.

mikey.hill
08-14-2009, 02:30 PM
Good.

I suggest then you stop making ridiculous statements .... everyone needs to be buy the VPS hosting package .... you can't read a static HTML file with 0444 permissions without generating a 403 error ..... a server box with multiple accounts is not sharing resources ..... full virtualization is watered down ... VMware only offers a full virtualization solution .... full virtualization does not use a hypervisor (you obviously have forgotten about hosted hypervisors) :rolleyes:

Do you even bother to read the stuff you are writing? Also, before you go make uninformed statements about a piece of software (VMware) you might want to check up on its capabilities. You do realize that VMI support has been available since kernel version 2.6.21

I think it is perhaps you who needs a refresher course in basic CS.

When did I ever say that everyone needed to buy a VPS server? If you look at one of my first posts in this topic I actually recommended a shared host that one of my clients used. I simply put out there that there are alternatives to shared hosting with VPS providers which have much better offers and products than what many people are lead to believe by people like you. I simply offered to help people set it up if they needed it(which if they have time and patience they don't) and didn't want to pay 50+/month to have one setup for them with a bunch of run of the mill crap preinstalled.

You are correct -your permissions of 0444 would work on an standard server but there is no point in doing that unless you want to waste yours and your clients time setting and unsetting permissions for each and every file for edits and you shouldn't be spewing that out there. S. 0640/0644 works just fine and has no security implications if you have proper system and group policies in place.

There is something clearly wrong with you and you need to find another channel to vent other than spreading your inferiority complex all across the internet, after all the internet's serious business you know.

Kiril
08-14-2009, 03:06 PM
When did I ever say that everyone needed to buy a VPS server?

How about here.

I do quite a bit of server administration, programming and development and for my clients who need a good web server that's cheap I would never recommend any shared host. Instead check out prgmr.com and linode.com ... Linode is around 19/month for a VPS server and Prgmr.com is about 8/month for a slightly better VPS.


You are correct -your permissions of 0444 would work on an standard server but there is no point in doing that unless you want to waste yours and your clients time setting and unsetting permissions for each and every file for edits and you shouldn't be spewing that out there. S. 0640/0644 works just fine and has no security implications if you have proper system and group policies in place.

A simple PHP script will easily handle changing file permission on a batch basis. No one in their right mind would attempt to change more than a few files manually. Are you sure you are a web developer?

There is something clearly wrong with you and you need to find another channel to vent other than spreading your inferiority complex all across the internet, after all the internet's serious business you know.

Sorry man, but I have problems with people who suggest/recommend spending money on unnecessary services/products. I also have problems with people who troll for work on sites that require being a sponsor before pushing products or services. You really don't have any other reason for posting in this forum .... do you? Your own words .... "I simply offered to help people set it up if they needed it". Basically it amounts to SPAM and I HATE SPAM! Play by the rules or don't play at all!

mikey.hill
08-14-2009, 03:33 PM
How about here.






A simple PHP script will easily handle changing file permission on a batch basis. No one in their right mind would attempt to change more than a few files manually. Are you sure you are a web developer?



Sorry man, but I have problems with people who suggest/recommend spending money on unnecessary services/products. I also have problems with people who troll for work on sites that require being a sponsor before pushing products or services. You really don't have any other reason for posting in this forum .... do you? Your own words .... "I simply offered to help people set it up if they needed it". Basically it amounts to SPAM and I HATE SPAM! Play by the rules or don't play at all!

Your hilarious man... You've provided myself and several others much entertainment this morning.

1. - Do you speak english or have you just been transported to backwardsland?

2. - If you had half a brain why would even think of writing a file perms script in PHP? use a real language like python on create a shell script in a variety of languages. But there is no reason to do this in the first place. It defies all logic and reasoning whatsoever. Set your groups up correctly and set restrictive, usable perms on your files. I don't need to tell you this though because your simply trolling, cause that's what your good at.

3. - If you don't want to spend money on it and you think it's unneccesary that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You obviously have some invested interest in shared hosting or you wouldn't be making such a big stink about someone who's simply providing information to others. I've been on this forum for around a year now... not nearly as long as some, but if I was really trying to advertise for my own interests I wouldn't need to come here to do so.

4. Looking through your comments and some of your previous posts you seem like a seemingly decent and knowledgable guy. However, you going out on a limb to point fingers, spread mis-information and then question my right to be on this website just as much as the next guy only makes me curious to know why. I guess I missed the part in the tos that the internet made you king of lala land.

Kiril
08-14-2009, 07:01 PM
2. - If you had half a brain why would even think of writing a file perms script in PHP? use a real language like python on create a shell script in a variety of languages. But there is no reason to do this in the first place. It defies all logic and reasoning whatsoever. Set your groups up correctly and set restrictive, usable perms on your files. I don't need to tell you this though because your simply trolling, cause that's what your good at.

I was merely making a point that you could batch process it, pick whatever language works best for you. You were the one who was so quick to suggest how much of a burden it would be to do it. Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again. Want to back peddle on this point too? And you accuse me of trolling. :laugh:

3. - If you don't want to spend money on it and you think it's unneccesary that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You obviously have some invested interest in shared hosting or you wouldn't be making such a big stink about someone who's simply providing information to others. I've been on this forum for around a year now... not nearly as long as some, but if I was really trying to advertise for my own interests I wouldn't need to come here to do so.

I have no vested interested in any particular type of hosting, unlike you. I merely made the point that your typical shared hosting was more than adequate for your typical green industry site with a handful of static HTML pages. It was YOU who took issue with this ... lets get it straight mikey. To suggest someone with 5-10 static HTML pages needs to fork out 20 bucks a month for a VPS is nothing short of absurd!

4. Looking through your comments and some of your previous posts you seem like a seemingly decent and knowledgable guy. However, you going out on a limb to point fingers, spread mis-information and then question my right to be on this website just as much as the next guy only makes me curious to know why. I guess I missed the part in the tos that the internet made you king of lala land.

Funny dude .... you mean like the B.S. you have been spreading here? Clearly you are a XEN man, which is great, I love open source, yet you then make inane statements about virtualization and other stuff that clearly shows your bias and troll like tendencies. BTW, I email this thread to all my buddies who manage data centers, they found your statements rather amusing, especially the one about "real" virtualization.

mikey.hill
08-14-2009, 07:57 PM
I was merely making a point that you could batch process it, pick whatever language works best for you. You were the one who was so quick to suggest how much of a burden it would be to do it. Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again. Want to back peddle on this point too? And you accuse me of trolling. :laugh:

You failed to make a point. I didn't say it was a burden, I said there is no reason to do it in the first place. Creating correct user/groups and setting a correct umask takes care of that for you. But hey, if you've got a better idea i'm sure the linux community would love to see exactly how you intend to revolutionize the oh so difficult task of setting file permissions using batch scripts.

I have no vested interested in any particular type of hosting, unlike you. I merely made the point that your typical shared hosting was more than adequate for your typical green industry site with a handful of static HTML pages. It was YOU who took issue with this ... lets get it straight mikey. To suggest someone with 5-10 static HTML pages needs to fork out 20 bucks a month for a VPS is nothing short of absurd!

I actually manage several diff. types of servers... from dedicated, in-house, no more shared :) thankfully and a few vps at different providers. So saying that I'm biased toward on is totally off. I evaluate solutions on a continual basis because it's an integral part of what I do. Also, you must have failed to read where I pointed out that prgmr.com has extremely low pricing on virtual hosting:

1 mth 6 mth 1 yr. ram Disk Network transfer
$5 $27 $48 64MiB 1.5GiB 10GiB
$6 $32.4 $57.6 128MiB 3GiB 20GiB
$8 $43.2 $76.8 256MiB 6GiB 40GiB

The reason why I mentioned slicehost/linode is because they have an LPM for quick and easy management of multiple nodes/accounting/users/DNS etc... but it's nothing that can't be setup easily on prgmr's servers. So it is a higher quality service at a nearly identical rate as what people pay for shared hosting. Not to mention that w/ virtual hosting you have the option of running as many domains as you want, upgrading/downgrading specs as needed, running any application you need, backups, control panels, db's ... all configurable to the needs of your website(s). You can say whatever you want but your still being hard-headed.


Funny dude .... you mean like the B.S. you have been spreading here? Clearly you are a XEN man, which is great, I love open source, yet you then make inane statements about virtualization and other stuff that clearly shows your bias and troll like tendencies. BTW, I email this thread to all my buddies who manage data centers, they found your statements rather amusing, especially the one about "real" virtualization.

Sure, email away. I'm bet all your buddies in data-centers worldwide are anxiously awaiting your next email. So what's next, would you like to attack my use of this smiley->:drinkup: ? Did I somehow offend you or your hosting fu?

Kiril
08-15-2009, 12:50 PM
I didn't say it was a burden, I said there is no reason to do it in the first place. Creating correct user/groups and setting a correct umask takes care of that for you. But hey, if you've got a better idea i'm sure the linux community would love to see exactly how you intend to revolutionize the oh so difficult task of setting file permissions using batch scripts.

Keep your eye on the ball Mikey. You are the one who said it was difficult.

You are correct -your permissions of 0444 would work on an standard server but there is no point in doing that unless you want to waste yours and your clients time setting and unsetting permissions for each and every file for edits and you shouldn't be spewing that out there.

FYI, I already stated that a properly managed server doesn't have these problems. You are a real piece of back peddling work, but go on, keep digging that hole.

I actually manage several diff. types of servers... from dedicated, in-house, no more shared :) thankfully and a few vps at different providers. So saying that I'm biased toward on is totally off. I evaluate solutions on a continual basis because it's an integral part of what I do. Also, you must have failed to read where I pointed out that prgmr.com has extremely low pricing on virtual hosting:

1 mth 6 mth 1 yr. ram Disk Network transfer
$5 $27 $48 64MiB 1.5GiB 10GiB
$6 $32.4 $57.6 128MiB 3GiB 20GiB
$8 $43.2 $76.8 256MiB 6GiB 40GiB

The reason why I mentioned slicehost/linode is because they have an LPM for quick and easy management of multiple nodes/accounting/users/DNS etc... but it's nothing that can't be setup easily on prgmr's servers. So it is a higher quality service at a nearly identical rate as what people pay for shared hosting. Not to mention that w/ virtual hosting you have the option of running as many domains as you want, upgrading/downgrading specs as needed, running any application you need, backups, control panels, db's ... all configurable to the needs of your website(s). You can say whatever you want but your still being hard-headed.

If you have the option for VPS at the same price as conventional shared, then by all means go for it if you really need and can use that type of setup. Your initial post may have pointed out the $8 package, but it also came with a healthy self-promoting sales pitch to buy the $20 linode package and hire you to set it up.

If you guys really want good hosting sign up for your VPS at linode and contact me. I do full server installations for $100(I charge clients through the companies I work for 200 for the same install).

And you then continue to make the same $20 pitch.

But for a business, 20/month is nothing for quality hosting that is both secure and provides quality responsiveness.

Which would you rather pay? 20/month for shared hosting that's secure and reliable or 5/month for shared

Bottom line dude, your "recommendation" is nothing more than an attempt to sell your services and has nothing to do with what people here really need.

BTW, I checked out the prgmr site and there are no packages available due to lack of servers, and to be perfectly honest the site looks like it was built by a 12 year old. Doesn't really inspire confidence in this host now does it?

Last but certainly not least, you still have yet to provide a good reason why someone with 5-10 static HTML pages needs a VPS. Personally I love the features a VPS offers, but consider you are trying to sell a package to people who for the most part can't even code HTML, let alone use/need the features a VPS has to offer.

So are you looking to sell people something they don't really need in order to generate some income for yourself, or are you making a reasonable recommendation for the majority of the people here who only need a handful of static pages in order to have a web presence? I think it is pretty clear the former is the case. Time for you to wake up and join reality dude and stop your self-promoting spam.

White Gardens
08-15-2009, 04:30 PM
So, are you guys done yet ???

mikey.hill
08-15-2009, 05:37 PM
BTW, I checked out the prgmr site and there are no packages available due to lack of servers, and to be perfectly honest the site looks like it was built by a 12 year old. Doesn't really inspire confidence in this host now does it?

prgmr doesn't waste their money on marketing to people who like flashy sign-up pages. They also don't provide any support other than hardware issues which is their responsibility. As their site states 'We don't assume you're stupid'. If you do a google search for prgmr you'll find it's one of the most highly regarded specifically for this reason. They don't waste time and money making their site look pretty but making their servers the best and least costly that you can get. And yes they are a small operation so sometimes you have to wait a week or so to get a server, but you can damn sure bet that the servers they build 1 at a time isn't built by some hack job in a server farm.

You probably don't visit reddit.com very much but it's pretty much known as the place that many of the top CS guys in the US/worldwide spend their downtime. Here's a post about prgmr which has a link to an article and also recommendations from actual high end site owners who use these services. Also includes commentary from the owner of prgmr.com
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/8hhzs/vps_comparison_between_slicehost_and_prgmr_is_a_8/

1MajorTom
08-16-2009, 10:58 AM
So, are you guys done yet ???
yes, they are.

White Gardens
08-16-2009, 01:11 PM
yes, they are.

Did you crack a whip there Tom ???? :laugh: