171–180 of 282 posts
What is everyone experience of the Reddit hosting vs. Imgur? For me the Reddit hosting seems less responsive then the old Imgur hosting. Reddit has always seemed to have an issue with scaling out for load (my opinion from my experience) and taking on the hosting themselves just seems to have made this worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit killed the model that allows them to be financially viable and "not annoying". I suspect the alternative is to shut down. The bit of community that exists solely within imgur can't be enough to subsidize the bandwidth costs of everyone else, can it? Thus far every image hosting site has gone the cycle of initially good, annoying attempts at monetizing, then shutting down. Which, of course, leaves a trail of fo…
I remember when “image hosing” meant copying the file into your machine’s public_html directory and sending out a link. Now somehow we need a third party to do this.
Did you just send a link for "C:\documents\public_html\picture.jpg" (or /home/ryan/public_html) and somehow it worked? I'm in need of a history lesson because I cannot fathom how that would have worked.
Imgur recently started doing something really annoying on their mobile site. If you keep scrolling past the picture you were linked to, it shows a bunch of other pictures that were not posted by the person who posted the first picture. These extra pictures seem to be generally in the same category as the picture that was meant to be linked to, so if the original picture is a slightly risque photo, the photos that fol…
Reddit killed the model that allows them to be financially viable and "not annoying". I suspect the alternative is to shut down. The bit of community that exists solely within imgur can't be enough to subsidize the bandwidth costs of everyone else, can it? Thus far every image hosting site has gone the cycle of initially good, annoying attempts at monetizing, then shutting down. Which, of course, leaves a trail of fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit killed the model that allows them to be financially viable and "not annoying". I suspect the alternative is to shut down. The bit of community that exists solely within imgur can't be enough to subsidize the bandwidth costs of everyone else, can it? Thus far every image hosting site has gone the cycle of initially good, annoying attempts at monetizing, then shutting down. Which, of course, leaves a trail of fo…
Imgur has developed a very active community and they have a MINIMUM of $20,000 per "promoted post" (ad). Considering how often I see new ads on there (at least once a month), I'd say they've finally figured out how to actually monetize an img hosting site. Whether they can avoid throwing away all that money on inefficiency and poor management is another story though. If anyone here knows how to scale an imgur clone p…
They would lose a lot of eyeballs if a new, non-annoying imgur like service popped up. Similar to how they initially killed off some existing image hosts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when “image hosing” meant copying the file into your machine’s public_html directory and sending out a link. Now somehow we need a third party to do this.
Sending out a link to what? I mean... maybe I'm too young to know what you're referring to, but if I have my local computer, sitting behind a NAT, sitting behind a firewall, sitting behind a personal router, on another NAT, and you're on the other side of the country, what am I sending you a link to? Did every machine have a domain name? Was your local DNS somehow broadcast publicly? Did you just send a link for "C:\…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when “image hosing” meant copying the file into your machine’s public_html directory and sending out a link. Now somehow we need a third party to do this.
Sending out a link to what? I mean... maybe I'm too young to know what you're referring to, but if I have my local computer, sitting behind a NAT, sitting behind a firewall, sitting behind a personal router, on another NAT, and you're on the other side of the country, what am I sending you a link to? Did every machine have a domain name? Was your local DNS somehow broadcast publicly? Did you just send a link for "C:\…
For example, I went to UTD from 2003 to 2007. This was long after the days of "the bulk of Internet users were on university networks" were over, but the infrastructure was still there. All students had ssh access to a handful of machines, the main one being apache.utdallas.edu.
So I could do this:
$ scp picture.jpg ajb0##000@apache.utdallas.edu:./public_html
http://www.utdallas.edu/~ajb0##000/picture.jpg
Edit: And even if you weren't at a university, back in the dialup days it used to be that even with home internet, everyone's computer was directly on the Internet with no NAT or any kind of firewall, so you could just install Apache on your box and serve what you wanted. On paper, most ISPs banned that practice in their TOS, but it was never enforced. The real impediments were that a) dialup connections would usually disconnect if you went idle too long and b) most people had dynamic IP addresses that changed every time you dialed in (for the latter, DynDNS was a godsend). And of course dialup bandwidth was shit, so hosting anything substantial (especially an image!) would slow down your connection (seriously, people would actually buy second phone lines from their telcos and maybe even get a second account with their ISP so as not to tie up their main connection).
Broadband made it easier: even with a NAT router, you could just forward port 80 to your desktop, and you won't have to worry about bandwidth, your connection would stay up 24/7, and even if your IP was technically considered dynamic it would almost never change. What really sunk the concept of hosting your own was a) mobile (good luck running Apache on your phone, and getting port forwarding on a mobile network is impossible) and b) the rise of services like Imgur that let you host shit with no hassle (Facebook killed self-hosted personal home pages for the same reason).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I want to share an image over chat with a friend, the long, odd looking reddit image urls disrupt the natural flow. It's like virtually slapping someone on the face. A nice, short and sweet URL is much nicer in text conversations. Also, being a developer and security conscious, I inspect URLs before I click on them. The longer they are, the more frustrated I get examining them.
Reddit has short URLs; they're in the sidebar of every submission, e.g., http://redd.it/6idi12
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't need to. They can just cheaply crawl the image sites for those informations. Easier. Less resource needed. No community to manage.
Not only that, but they already have cloud environments that allow them to get all of that data anyway. Android phones come pre-configured to automatically upload every photo you've ever taken to the cloud, Amazon offers unlimited personal photo storage, and Google and Amazon offer the two largest enterprise cloud computing environments available, so they can likely just analyze imgur's logs.
And that Amazon and GCP analyze customer info (off the disks? off unencrypted HTTP?)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember when “image hosing” meant copying the file into your machine’s public_html directory and sending out a link. Now somehow we need a third party to do this.
Sending out a link to what? I mean... maybe I'm too young to know what you're referring to, but if I have my local computer, sitting behind a NAT, sitting behind a firewall, sitting behind a personal router, on another NAT, and you're on the other side of the country, what am I sending you a link to? Did every machine have a domain name? Was your local DNS somehow broadcast publicly? Did you just send a link for "C:\…
In the unix world, iirc, many systems were configured to expose a folder on the user's home directory (www). Which would expose that to something like: www.mit.edu/~