Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Static site hosting hurdles

notes.volution.ro

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 183 posts

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#31

Post by alberth »

dragontamer wrote: post #29
alberth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dreamhost is hugely underrated. Their custom panel with deep integrations are phenomenal for side projects or small businesses. In under a minute you can have your web server, SSL cert, database and more all setup and working - and you don’t have to manage any of it. I wish more companies offered their level of managed services. (If anyone knows of others, I’d like to hear who)

Is there anything really wrong with a CPanel host with FTP upload? Namecheap, Dreamhost, GoDaddy even (well maybe not them lol). There are a billion shared hosts everywhere and CPanel really isn't hard to use for HTTPS enabling or getting FTP locations to work with. ------ Bonus points: shove a random .php file in there and it probably will work if you need just a little bit of dynamic content.

There’s a massive difference in quality and ease of use between cPanel and dreamhost custom panel.

I’ve been a customer since 2004

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#32

Post by cvwright »

mymythisisthis wrote: post #27

I'd be nice to run a self-hosted site from a home server. Currently paying a third party for a static site, but space is so limited. Storage space isn't that expensive, until you have to pay monthly for it. Mostly just want to host my own pictures. Would really like a hands on workshop to learn to do it (how to get a static IP, setup everything correctly, how to use https).

Better option is probably to run a reverse proxy like nginx on a cheap VPS, with a Wireguard VPN back to the “origin” server in your house.

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#33

Post by lukewiwa »

Something1234 wrote: post #13
akerl_ wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competitive by what metric? My site lives more or less entirely within the AWS free tier. I think my total AWS bill is around $20/mo, and 80% of that is for the stupid number of domain names I’m hosting zones for.

Quick question: Why wouldn't I use my free tier registrar DNS? Are there really that man DNS queries serviced cause you pay based off the number of responses? Especially if they are stupid domains.

For me my static sites are small enough that it all falls within the free tier and I can deploy everything using the CDK.

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#34

Post by giantrobot »

chubot wrote: post #23

Uh what's wrong with shared hosting? I use Dreamhost but there are dozens of others. It costs less than $10/month and I've used it since 2009. I think the industry (or part of a generation of programmers) somehow collectively forgot that it exists. I don't see any mention of it in the article -- it solves the problem exactly. It easily serves and survives all the spikes from Hacker News that my site gets. Shared host…

I've also been a Dreamhost customer for a long time. Note that Dreamhost's $10/mo is for I-don't-know-exactly number of domains. If you own a domain name you can add it in their dashboard, point it to their name servers, and you're up and running. Their services includes e-mail which means avoiding the perils of fully self-hosting.

While you could save a few dollars renting a VPS, it's only cheaper if your time is worth nothing. If you're just going to do static hosting I've found it to be a good deal.

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#35

Post by chubot »

alberth wrote: post #25
chubot wrote: post #23

Uh what's wrong with shared hosting? I use Dreamhost but there are dozens of others. It costs less than $10/month and I've used it since 2009. I think the industry (or part of a generation of programmers) somehow collectively forgot that it exists. I don't see any mention of it in the article -- it solves the problem exactly. It easily serves and survives all the spikes from Hacker News that my site gets. Shared host…

Dreamhost is hugely underrated. Their custom panel with deep integrations are phenomenal for side projects or small businesses. In under a minute you can have your web server, SSL cert, database and more all setup and working - and you don’t have to manage any of it. I wish more companies offered their level of managed services. (If anyone knows of others, I’d like to hear who)

FWIW I also tried NearlyFreeSpeech, which is the top comment in the same thread I linked:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29253277

I think it is good, and will solve people's static hosting problem. It's a server that you don't have to manage. It has a nice fast custom web interface.

Except I didn't realize it was FreeBSD. That probably doesn't matter for most, but I'm used to Linux, so I like Dreamhost better. Also I feel like they are using some kind of slower NFS disk, whereas Dreamhost feels like a bare metal disk mostly.

-----

I was trying to find another thread here, where someone remarked that "shared hosting" got a bad reputation in the early days due to janky control panels and bad/aggressive marketing.

Also a lot of the companies seem to have gotten acquired in the early 2000's, i.e. they changed hands a lot.

But again I've been using Dreamhost since 2009 and it's been great. No complaints except the typical thing everyone does of raising the domain name pricing after a year (the advertised price is the "first year discount").

They have not raised the hosting fees. (You might save $3 per year using a domain name purchased elsewhere, but that doesn't seem worth the hassle to me.)

So I thought there were many other shared hosting companies, but maybe not? Maybe they all got caught up in acquisitions and then the service declined? (That's exactly what's going to happen with the free cloud services you're all using now BTW, so that's why I stick with something older and proven.)

I have used 1and1 in the early 2000's, but I remember it being very janky and weird, and Dreamhost is a lot better technically. They seem to have more competent system administration.

----

FWIW here is a thread with some competitors:

https://lobste.rs/s/jkutwc/recommendations_for_shared_hostin...

Honestly I wonder if Dreamhost is more unique now than it used to be? I thought of it as "commodity shared hosting" -- i.e. a Linux OS and a web server. But I think that actually being able to manage that competently is a dying art :-/

Other threads I bookmarked while looking for shared hosting that supports FastCGI (dynamic sites, not static, and not PHP!):

bluehost: https://www.bluehost.com/help/article/fastcgi-for-php

hostgator: https://www.hostgator.com/help/article/does-hostgator-suppor...

I'd be interested to know if those companies are comparable to dreamhost!

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#36

Post by dragontamer »

alberth wrote: post #31
dragontamer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything really wrong with a CPanel host with FTP upload? Namecheap, Dreamhost, GoDaddy even (well maybe not them lol). There are a billion shared hosts everywhere and CPanel really isn't hard to use for HTTPS enabling or getting FTP locations to work with. ------ Bonus points: shove a random .php file in there and it probably will work if you need just a little bit of dynamic content.

There’s a massive difference in quality and ease of use between cPanel and dreamhost custom panel. I’ve been a customer since 2004

Well, I'm sure that's true.

But I guess my overall point is that CPanel is way easier than anything the original poster / author wrote.

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#37

Post by Dalewyn »

doliveira wrote: post #20
Dalewyn wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We’ve already standardized the hosting side of static sites by using the file system. Worth noting that the incoming younger generations can't and don't into file systems.[1] Yes, anyone who wants to be a webmaster should do their homework, but that is besides the point. We are probably the last generation who can be ubiquitously assumed to have an understanding of files and folders/directories in a computer. [1]: h…

That's fascinating! Young people struggling with files and folders just like my Mom does.

It's really not surprising.

The most familiar computer to young people, their smartphone, does everything to hide and abstract away the file system and even the fact that it's a computer.

When someone doesn't even realize a concept exists, it shouldn't come as a surprise they will struggle.

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#38

Post by forgotmypw17 »

chubot wrote: post #23

Uh what's wrong with shared hosting? I use Dreamhost but there are dozens of others. It costs less than $10/month and I've used it since 2009. I think the industry (or part of a generation of programmers) somehow collectively forgot that it exists. I don't see any mention of it in the article -- it solves the problem exactly. It easily serves and survives all the spikes from Hacker News that my site gets. Shared host…

Another DreamHost fan here. I host dozens of hybrid sites on both the shared hosting and VPS and the service is great. My setup is pretty simple, a Perl-based SSG which generates static HTML on-demand if it happens to be missing from the tree.

I've had a few minor issues over the years, often self-inflicted, and whenever I use the support panel, I get a helpful human response within an couple of hours, usually with a resolution. If I have to respond, I can respond to the email by email!

All in all, can't praise DreamHost enough.

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#39

Post by chubot »

giantrobot wrote: post #34
chubot wrote: post #23

Uh what's wrong with shared hosting? I use Dreamhost but there are dozens of others. It costs less than $10/month and I've used it since 2009. I think the industry (or part of a generation of programmers) somehow collectively forgot that it exists. I don't see any mention of it in the article -- it solves the problem exactly. It easily serves and survives all the spikes from Hacker News that my site gets. Shared host…

I've also been a Dreamhost customer for a long time. Note that Dreamhost's $10/mo is for I-don't-know-exactly number of domains. If you own a domain name you can add it in their dashboard, point it to their name servers, and you're up and running. Their services includes e-mail which means avoiding the perils of fully self-hosting. While you could save a few dollars renting a VPS, it's only cheaper if your time is wo…

Yeah I think it's infinite domains ... You pay a yearly fee for each domain, which is something like $16.

But the hosting is a flat fee at less than $10/month. (edit: just checked, actually I pay yearly for a discount.)

So I find that to be pretty nice, because I have had 5 domains at one point. And now I have 3 or so.

But I always keep the same hosting account. It works well in practice.

Re: Static site hosting hurdles

#40

Post by pryelluw »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #38
chubot wrote: post #23

Uh what's wrong with shared hosting? I use Dreamhost but there are dozens of others. It costs less than $10/month and I've used it since 2009. I think the industry (or part of a generation of programmers) somehow collectively forgot that it exists. I don't see any mention of it in the article -- it solves the problem exactly. It easily serves and survives all the spikes from Hacker News that my site gets. Shared host…

Another DreamHost fan here. I host dozens of hybrid sites on both the shared hosting and VPS and the service is great. My setup is pretty simple, a Perl-based SSG which generates static HTML on-demand if it happens to be missing from the tree. I've had a few minor issues over the years, often self-inflicted, and whenever I use the support panel, I get a helpful human response within an couple of hours, usually with a…

Same here except with opalstack.com It’s run by the same great team that was behind webfaction before godaddy bought it.
Post reply on HN