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/?

>>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