Web host recommendations

Was wondering /comp/'s opinion on webhosting plans. I operate a personal site that only needs 1gb storage, 20gb\m bandwidth, PHP\mysql, but a lack of reliability really shits me.

I've been with Fuitadnet ($7.50\mo, 3gb storage 25gb bandwidth) for the last three years but it has gradually got worse and worse, with a several-day downtime becoming almost a bi-monthly event, and customer service completely infuriating. (Don't go with fuitadnet, btw.)

I was wondering if anonymous had suggestions for which hosts offer cheapish shared hosting that doesn't suck. Some additional criteria:

- fuck unlimited hosts, or hosts that think they can deliver 100gb+ for less than ten bucks a month, or whatever. All my experience with those hosts leads me to think this strategy results in shitty service\downtime issues\etc all the time.
- fuck dreamhost, because my friend has it and it goes down only a bit less than mine does.
- fuck cpanel. Do any hosts have a nice usable UI for changing settings? Even if only I see it, having a slick, clean, valid HTML admin interface without the bullshit would make me happy with a host.
- fuck linux. I don't mind conceding on this point but I think I'd feel like I had a bigger cock if I was hosted on a Mac or Solaris or even just FreeBSD or something. Windows is of course more retarded than Linux in this one area, so none of that.

I'm happy paying up to about $10\mo for this, which seems reasonable given the many thousands of plans similar to my Fuitadnet one out there. Your thoughts, /comp/?

- fuck linux. I don't mind conceding on this point but I think I'd feel like I had a bigger cock if I was hosted on a Mac or Solaris or even just FreeBSD or something.

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'RE RETARDED.

>>1
http://all-inkl.com/eng/index.php?cna=webhosting
look at "all-inkl Privat"

http://www.surpasshosting.com/

>>2
Go fucking write a shell script nerdfucker

>>3
Huh, they seem pretty good. I signed up for the test account. I am put off by the fact they're in Germany (most of my site's readers are in the US, so I'd prefer it there) and that I can't find many reviews of them. Do you use them or something? IMAP sounds cool.

>>4
That looks interesting. They obviously know how to write a webpage.
http://www.webhostingjury.com/reviews/Surpass_Hosting puts me off it, though.. there's a mixed bag of responses there, with a couple pretty negative about it. Plus it's another one of those overselling "20000000gb per person!!!" hosts, so I am more inclined to take note of what the negative posts say. Do you have personal experience of them?

nearlyfreespeech.net

>>6
Too expensive.

You get what you pay for. Unless you get a big-ass plan bw is gonna be expensive. For $10 you have to go with some el cheapo host that will eventually assrape you.
Textdrive is pretty great too but not cheap enough for you.

>>1
apache+dyndns

Oh, and run it on OpenBSD

https://www.proinet.se/tjanster/webbhotell/lilla/

>>8
I had a look at Textdrive, actually. They have a $99\yr plan that seems good, but I looked at their forums and found a few people discouraged by them.. I dunno. But it was on my shortlist of who to go with (and I think they're moving to Solaris, too!)

Do you have good experience with them? If so I'm willing to commit to Textdrive.

>>11
What's with all this moonspeak shit? I don't really feel that comfortable with a host that's not in an English speaking country. I've had a bad enough time with all the outsourced Indians at Fuitadnet.

>>12
Host not in English speaking country = inability to get sued by American companies

>>13
"I HAS A SERVER IN ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT MEANS I'M FREE FROM THE PIGS HERE AMIRITELOL"

im jeff

>>15
gtfo, jeff.

>>5
Do you use them or something?
Yes.

IMAP sounds cool.
It is.

>>14
You're not free from the local authorities since it's YOUR homepage, but at least they can't confiscate the server

>>17
sarcasm, learn it.

I am now interested in NaziCo and TextDrive. I am leaning towards TextDrive because they are all Web 2.0 and not in Germany.

$99\yr isn't bad at all - my current host is $89. The only discouraging thing is a setup fee of $25 but I can cope with it. I just hope they're up as long as they promise (it says 99.9%).

If you don't know Linux you shouldn't be running a webpage.  Gb2/Geocities.

>>12
Yes. Definitely not the cheapest and the admin UI is crap, but excellent service.

Oh yeah just in case it was not clear enough I was talking about textdrive, no that other .se webbhotell thing

I'll recommend www.bluehost.com

>>23
gtfo namefag

>>23
2000gb transfer, 200gb webspace. No thanks.

>>21
Aww. I was hoping they'd at least have tweaked it to look pretty. Webmin, right?

>>25
They are building an alternative called Textpanel. I think it was beta'ed. I was lucky enough not to have to log in to the admin panel for months (and can't verify right now) but I don't think they have deployed it yet because they would definitely have sent a mail about it.
It's probably still Webmin, yes. And without any pretty skin to make it less painful.

>>26
From what I could gather on the forums, it is meant to supplement the Webmin, not replace it. Which sounds disappointing, as in that case I expect it to be little more than "RUBY ON RAILS SWITCHED ON OR OFF??" and "AUTOMATIC WEB 2.0 LOGO GENERATOR OPTION" tied up in a nice interface.

While you're around, can I ask if you ever noticed your Textdrive account drop offline or act up at all? Their site seems pretty proud about their reliability but some people in forums have nothing but bad things to say about it.

I can't give you first-hand accurate stats on reliability since I took long ago their $500 mixed grill "lifetime" offer to use for a somewhat bw-hungry site, but it's been postponed since forever and right now the account is only used as a filedump and for a few very low traffic sites. Fwiw I've never seen or had reports of my websites going down at all in almost a year.

hello i am fairX the haxxor join my community of gullible fools payme enough for access to a private area of zombie machines ;)

http://uk2.net/web_hosting/

They are very reliable, I've never had a problem with them

http://www.mythic-beasts.com/
http://www.blackcatnetworks.co.uk/

Try one of these. They are super-reliable, run by guys who really know their stuff.

Who the FUCK would want to run a server on a Mac!? That's almost as bad as using Windows NT. Macs are toy computers for Adobe faggots and faggots who can't use a real computer. Also, $5000 please.

▌USD]µT♥♥µ'↔5000←°◄_»please\3SoO°_√òû►/♠»x 'n_}x⌂DåÅ☼

>>32

Who said anything about running a server on a Mac, you dickshit?

>>34
fuck linux. I don't mind conceding on this point but I think I'd feel like I had a bigger cock if I was hosted on a Mac or Solaris or even just FreeBSD or something.

assert post[0].failure and post[0].poster.macfag

http://www.bftglobal.com/

>>29
fairX, you are becoming less and less convincing!

>>30
More like furries. They don't really offer plans to suit me, but thanks.

>>32
Well, www.apple.com runs it, and I haven't seen that go down. Also, we're not talking high-performance hosting here, just crappy shared hosting services - and chances are someone who bothers to support the specialist market for Macs probably knows more than generic-shitty-shared-host-who-figured-out-how-to-install-redhat #4829.

>>30 and >>36
They oversell. I can't trust them.

>>37
Well, www.apple.com runs it, and I haven't seen that go down.
And Microsoft runs Windows in some servers, so what?

it's come down to this.
You are an over-pompous fag that needs to get into the real world and realize that if you want great hosting you are going to have to sell your soul.
Either go with some solutions posted and save money, or sell your house.

>>39
I already said I'm pretty set on TextDrive, which seems like a fairly high-end (well, expensive) shared host with a good reputation. I'm still happy to look at the other links people have been sending, though, which is why this thread is occasionally bumped by my responses. Suck a cock.

>>38
So Windows is clearly better than Linux for hosting websites! Duh.

>>40
| So Windows is clearly better than Linux for hosting websites! Duh.

IIS is for fags.  GTFO.

The facts metrosexual fags run Apple servers, or Microsoft run some Windows servers because they'd feel too useless if they didn't don't mean either is nearly as good a choice as Linux (or FreeBSD) for a server.

>>40
Since you didn't mention this requirement you're probably not gonna use it, but just remember, if you're going to run Rails on Textdrive, it better be real fast. They kill processes that eat even just a little too much RAM or CPU. Rails apps stick around forever, and many are written without any consideration regarding performance and leak like crazy.

>>40
Not rly. It's easier to use, for people who aren't good at SSH'ing. But, other than that I don't think there's any more advantages. Now, brb, gotta take a huge crap.

>>41 and >>44
Well duhhhh sarcasm duhhh. You guys are retarded.

>>43
Yeah, I have heard this. I don't plan on using Ruby, but I actually like the idea of a strict host like that, because as far as I know a lot of the reason shared hosting is shitty is because it only takes one person's dumb to screw up a server many other people are using.

Every web host oversells, unless you buy a dedicated server and pipe from them. Don't be so retarded.

To different degrees, though, right? Generic SuperHost that offers 120,000gb a month isn't totally comparable to one that offers 15gb. I think this is reflected in the generally shitty uptimes that people report when using these types of hosts.

Overselling is a reasonable policy. Statistically, users rarely use all of their plan. The problem isn't overselling, but retarded hosts that won't ever move a site even if that would help one of their servers a lot, or shitty hosts who just fill them up until they break.

THE CIA WILL HOST EVERYTHING YOU WANT, FOR FREE.
IF YOU COOPERATE.

http://members.powweb.com/powweb/hosting.bml