Re: Choosing a hosting service for a new site or wiki
Rod Pemberton
news:44daec37-8319-41e4...@o39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> This post is to invite suggestions on the choice of a web host for a
> new wiki or website on programming language design. Following on from
> prior discussions at
>
> [links]
>
> the next step - the final step - is to choose a hosting service.
>
Free web hosts that may be worth a look:
http://www.000webhost.com/
http://www.110mb.com/
Sorry, it seems you're already aware of the first.
[in later comments which were snipped]
> I'll list what I think the basic requirements are based on my own
> ideas and the above Usenet threads. Although this post is asking about
> specific sites if you can add a requirement or disagree with any I've
> written feel free to say.
>
> Basic requirements
> [...]
>
> Desirable
> [...]
You might able to use multiple free sites to acquire the necessary services.
E.g., one may have more bandwidth, another more file space, another free
scripting, etc.
FYI, if I search for "000webhost" and "110Mb" and "rapidshare" together, I
get dozens of ad pages with many links for similar sites. If you add "free"
and "web hosting" you get more specific results. You might mix it up by
adding your features: "php", "ftp", "ssh", or dropping "rapidshare" etc.
E.g., pages like this come up:
http://www.thefreehosts.com/tag/000webhost/
http://devilsworkshop.org/top-5-free-website-hosting-services/
http://woork.blogspot.com/2008/12/5-awesome-free-web-hosting-services.html
Of course, just a search for "free web host" pulls up 'indexing' sites which
compare free hosting sites based on features. E.g.,
http://www.free-webhosts.com/
Other services that are low cost or free that could be of use:
File hosting
http://rapidshare.com/
Domain registration
http://www.godaddy.com/
Email forwarding
http://www.pobox.com/
URL redirection
http://www.urlredirect.jbi.in/
Tiny URLs
http://tinyurl.com/
> Anyone have experience with a particular provider that you would
> recommend? Or do you have opinions on those below?
>
Steve Dubrovich setup his site using 000webhost:
http://www.project-fbin.hostoi.com/index.htm
> [...] black apple host [...]
>
> Now, here's the weird issue of the day.
> [...] Google Usenet front end WILL NOT post the message.
> [... Google won't post messages with "blackapplehost" in them... ]
>
> Google censorship...?
>
"blackapplehost" is not censored in Usenet replies that make it to Google
Groups, or wasn't. There are a number of posts in 2008 that have that
word. Reading those old posts doesn't make Google crash. Bug? Backdoor?
Auto-correction for "apple"?
Rod Pemberton
James Harris
wrote:
...
> You might able to use multiple free sites to acquire the necessary services.
> E.g., one may have more bandwidth, another more file space, another free
> scripting, etc.
True. One site would be better but there might be a need to pick and
mix.
> FYI, if I search for "000webhost" and "110Mb" and "rapidshare" together, I
> get dozens of ad pages with many links for similar sites. If you add "free"
> and "web hosting" you get more specific results. You might mix it up by
> adding your features: "php", "ftp", "ssh", or dropping "rapidshare" etc.
> E.g., pages like this come up:
>
> http://www.thefreehosts.com/tag/000web
> host/http://devilsworkshop.org/top-5-free-website-hosting-services/
> http://woork.blogspot.com/2008/12/5-awesome-free-web-hosting-services...
One thing that I've discovered difficult to find is the ability to
give people individual accounts. It's not that there are no such
services but looking for user accounts restricts choice and isn't
something that most seem to advertise. Many hosting sites are set up
for one person or a small local group to use, providing just one FTP
id or similar.
...
> > Anyone have experience with a particular provider that you would
> > recommend? Or do you have opinions on those below?
>
> Steve Dubrovich setup his site using 000webhost:http://www.project-fbin.hostoi.com/index.htm
I checked it out. Again, the concept of a cooperating group of users
was absent.
Thanks for the suggestions, Rod. I'll post separately (in this thread)
some hosts which do support userids.
James
James Harris
wrote:
> ... basic requirements ...
Just an update for anyone who is interested....
Here are three providers that all satisfy the basic requirements
(listed earlier). I've set up some example content. Don't expect it to
be complete in any sense. It is just a few partial pages for testing
and illustration purposes.
http://pldev.wikispaces.com/
http://pldev.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://sites.google.com/site/pldevel/
The last one does not allow a name of five characters as site name so
I had to lengthen it but at least it allows an external domain name to
be added so it is also available (temporarily) at
Each of the providers has its good points and bad points. I would like
something a bit more advanced than what I've seen so far but that
still keeps the basics. http://www.host1free.com/ seems like it might
be more flexible. They are having problems creating new accounts just
now but if I can get an account I'll try that out and report back.
James
Robbert Haarman
Jumping in a bit late after an extended period of illness, but here
are some more criteria to consider:
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 03:46:12AM -0800, James Harris wrote:
>
> Basic requirements
>
> Usable at no charge
> Able to serve web pages and other documents
> Able to support user accounts
>
> Desirable
>
> Simple DNS name, or,
> allows use of DNS name from another provider
> Dynamic web pages
> PHP
> SQL database
> Source code management
> Automatic backups
> Able to use userids from an external provider such as Openid
> Discreet advertising, or,
> no advertising coupled with a dependable business model
> Able to run applications or scripts or cron jobs
>
> And it would be good to avoid anything with mandated collaboration
> tools we don't want such as forums.
If we have something that:
- We could point a domain name at
- Gives us the ability to run CGI scripts (and perhaps PHP)
- Database access (I prefer PostgreSQL, but others seem to like MySQL -
in my experience, it's usable, but may require some workarounds)
This would give us the ability to run whatever software we want to actually
present the content, allow users to add content, etc. If we do that, we are
not bound to the particular hosting service, either, so if we later decide
it is time to move on (wasn't satisfactory after all, or we've outgrown it,
or whatever), we can simply move the software and the database over to the
new place, change the DNS record, and be up and running again with almost
no user-visible disruption of service.
Shell access would be a nice bonus, and root access would be fantastic, but
I am not aware of any free services that offer it.
Also, one thing we definitely don't want is providers that insert their
own advertisements in what we serve. Not just because the ads may be
annoying, but also because they may break things.
Other than that, more storage space and traffic allowance is better.
I will take a look at the services that have been proposed so far and see
what I think about them.
Regards,
Bob
Robbert Haarman
>
> One thing that I've discovered difficult to find is the ability to
> give people individual accounts. It's not that there are no such
> services but looking for user accounts restricts choice and isn't
> something that most seem to advertise. Many hosting sites are set up
> for one person or a small local group to use, providing just one FTP
> id or similar.
I don't actually see this as a big problem. What I have in mind is
something where the user accounts exist in our own software (probably
in the database). We can make as many as we want, there.
The user accounts that the hosting service gives you are just for uploading
the software, making backups, and performing occasional software updates.
Only one or a few people need to do that, so a few, or even a single account
for that would be fine.
Just my 2 cents,
Bob
Robbert Haarman
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 02:51:29PM -0800, James Harris wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:46 am, James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ... basic requirements ...
>
> Just an update for anyone who is interested....
>
> Here are three providers that all satisfy the basic requirements
> (listed earlier). I've set up some example content. Don't expect it to
> be complete in any sense. It is just a few partial pages for testing
> and illustration purposes.
>
> http://pldev.wikispaces.com/
> http://pldev.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
> http://sites.google.com/site/pldevel/
>
> The last one does not allow a name of five characters as site name so
> I had to lengthen it but at least it allows an external domain name to
> be added so it is also available (temporarily) at
>
> http://www.pldev.tk/
Actually, I've seen that the way this is (at least currently) implemented
is with what is called a redirect. How it works is that
http://www.pldev.tk/ contains a frameset, with a frame that loads the
actual page (https://sites.google.com/site/pldevel/ in this case). There
are two things I don't like about this:
1. It uses frames - which means your site uses frames, even if you didn't
want to, and frames-capable software is required for using the site.
2. Although this neatly hides the "ugly" URL of the site from the browser's
address bar, it also keeps the same address in the address bar, no matter
which page you're on. This makes linking to a particular URL on the site
a tedious and error-prone process.
What I am looking for is a hosting service where you can put the web
server's IP address in the DNS A record for the domain, and have it work.
This requires something like (in decreasing order of expected price) a
dedicated server, a virtual private server, or a virtual host in the
webserver (supported by all major web server software).
From skimming the help, I couldn't figure out if Google pages actually
supports this. Same with Wiki-site.
Wikispaces (from http://www.wikispaces.com/content/wiki-pricing)
seems not to support using your own domain, unless you use the
$20 per month account (which is really a lot of money for what we are
planning to do).
From http://www.000webhost.com/ it seems that they have a pretty good
set of features (quite a lot of space and traffic!), but no CGI scripts
and their database is MySQL. This could be a fine choice, but I will
keep looking for something with a bit more flexibility.
http://www.host1free.com/ is similar (MySQL and no CGI), but list right
there that they offer no SSH access - which is a pity, because that is
how I like to upload my files (FTP - everything including passwords in
cleartext - I think we're really past that age now).
0000Free.com (from http://0000free.com/hosting.html) offers 1000 MB space
and 10 GB traffic (which should be more than enough), MySQL databases,
and CGI scripts. No backups, but I would have us set those up ourselves
anyway, because it's the only way to know they have been done right.
HelioHost (http://www.heliohost.org/home/) looks like it may be really
great, offering a great set of features
(http://www.heliohost.org/home/features - SSL, PostgreSQL, Rails, and
Django), but they apparently limit how many accounts can be created with
them per day, which may make it difficult to actually get service from
them.
The free hosting offered by Keeflex (http://www.keeflex.com/node/8) looks
really promising - CGI, PHP, PostgreSQL, even Ruby on Rails and SSL (so
we can let our users log in securely :-D ). 5000 MB monthly traffic is
not that much in the hosting business, but it should be plenty for us,
at least to get started.
Of the services I've found, HelioHost and Keeflex seem to be the best.
However, that is without having tried them - the proof of the pudding
is in the eating, of course.
Regards,
Bob
Rod Pemberton
news:2011020508...@yoda.inglorion.net...
>
> The free hosting offered by Keeflex (http://www.keeflex.com/node/8) looks
> really promising - CGI, PHP, PostgreSQL, even Ruby on Rails and SSL (so
> we can let our users log in securely :-D ). 5000 MB monthly traffic is
> not that much in the hosting business, but it should be plenty for us,
> at least to get started.
>
Can you put the CGI on one host and everything else on another? E.g.,
000webhost says it allows 100GB/mo bandwidth... If the non-CGI pulls
100GB/mo, will the CGI stuff consume more than 5GB/mo?
As long as neither host is initiating unsolicited network connections,
whatever you do with them together should work, yes? E.g., OP connects to
host A, host A tells host B do some scripting stuff, host B attempts to
connect to OP, host B connection blocked by router or firewall - unsolicited
connection... If host B instead returns data to host A which then returns
stuff to the OP, all should be fine...
RP
Rod Pemberton
> On Jan 28, 6:58 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notreplytome.cmm>
> wrote:
> One thing that I've discovered difficult to find is the ability to
> give people individual accounts.
>
Well, hopefully, you recall that I'm against that... User accounts almost
always require an active email account elsewhere in order to set them up. I
haven't used an actual email account in about a decade. I understand I'm
not the norm and should probably get a trash email somewhere.
There are thousands of sites I would've liked to have contributed a post or
two. However, they all require you to setup an account to post. An account
to post in addition to having an email account? An account to post a post
or two? No way... That's just not happening, for me at least. It's not
worth the trouble to setup their account *even if* I had an active email
account. So, for "passerby's" to your site, you'll run into the same
problem, if your site uses account based access. Some guy in the know wants
to fix one webpage or ask a question in a forum, gets frustrated with the
need to setup an account to fix things or to ask for help, and so he leaves
without fixing things or getting help... I'm for just connecting and doing,
more like Wiki's such as Esolangs or a less restricted Wikipedia. In such a
case, I'd rather not have my IP published as most Wiki's do, even if it's
logged so the admin can control things, like banning some guy for too much
"graffiti". E.g., I'd run the IP through a one-way hash and use that as the
visible user ID. It's unique. It doesn't give hackers one more active IP
to port scan, or let them know "where" a cablemodem is so they can attempt
to hack it. The IP is (probably) logged and the site admin can see that if
needed.
Rod Pemberton
Robbert Haarman
>
> Can you put the CGI on one host and everything else on another? E.g.,
> 000webhost says it allows 100GB/mo bandwidth... If the non-CGI pulls
> 100GB/mo, will the CGI stuff consume more than 5GB/mo?
Interesting idea, and definitely something we could consider if traffic
volume ever becomes an issue. On the other hand, I imagine that most of
our data will be in a database - and will thus have to be converted to
HTML using a program (i.e. CGI). While it is certainly possible to make
that work with a scheme like you propose, I think it is so cumbersome
that we would be better off looking for a different host. Even a paid
host; if the site becomes that popular, I don't mind paying a small
amount of money to keep it functioning well.
Regards,
Bob
James Harris
wrote:
I hope you don't mind but I'll reply to two posts in one go - i.e. to
the one above and the one where you listed some requirements - as my
comments are about features generally.
First of all, thanks for the suggestions and ideas. It sounds like you
may have had some experience in setting up something similar. I
haven't. I've only set up sites where I was editing content that would
appear in web pages. The extra features would be great but have doubts
about what we'll find available, which I'll mention below.
First, what you mention above about user accounts sounds good but I'd
be surprised if we'll be able to run arbitrary software. I guess the
provider would want to maintain control over CPU usage for example.
I would very much like the ability to run server-side web page
customisation backed by database access. I was thinking of something
like PHP, JSP or ASP. (Of those I've only ever developed stuff using
JSP but I think the others will do as well, PHP probably much better.)
There are free services out there that offer things such as PHP and a
database but the ones I've seen have what I thought were downsides
such as appearing to offer only one userid or requiring banner ads.
Re. adverts it would be good to avoid them altogether but the hosting
service has to get a benefit somehow. I don't mind single-line text
adverts at the bottom of pages. Is that so bad? If the hosting service
gets some benefit from the service they provide that suggests to me
that the site is viable in the long term.
For quantities I can't imagine us really needing to store lots of data
- detailed photos, videos etc - but I could be wrong.
I'd welcome correction on any of the above especially the provision of
user accounts.
James
James Harris
wrote:
> Hi James,
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 02:51:29PM -0800, James Harris wrote:
> > On Jan 27, 11:46 am, James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > ... basic requirements ...
>
> > Just an update for anyone who is interested....
>
> > Here are three providers that all satisfy the basic requirements
> > (listed earlier). I've set up some example content. Don't expect it to
> > be complete in any sense. It is just a few partial pages for testing
> > and illustration purposes.
>
> > http://pldev.wikispaces.com/
> > http://pldev.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
> > http://sites.google.com/site/pldevel/
>
> > The last one does not allow a name of five characters as site name so
> > I had to lengthen it but at least it allows an external domain name to
> > be added so it is also available (temporarily) at
>
> > http://www.pldev.tk/
>
> Actually, I've seen that the way this is (at least currently) implemented
> actual page (https://sites.google.com/site/pldevel/in this case). There
> are two things I don't like about this:
>
> 1. It uses frames - which means your site uses frames, even if you didn't
> want to, and frames-capable software is required for using the site.
>
> 2. Although this neatly hides the "ugly" URL of the site from the browser's
> address bar, it also keeps the same address in the address bar, no matter
> which page you're on. This makes linking to a particular URL on the site
> a tedious and error-prone process.
>
> What I am looking for is a hosting service where you can put the web
> server's IP address in the DNS A record for the domain, and have it work.
> This requires something like (in decreasing order of expected price) a
> dedicated server, a virtual private server, or a virtual host in the
> webserver (supported by all major web server software).
>
> From skimming the help, I couldn't figure out if Google pages actually
> supports this. Same with Wiki-site.
Would you like to try it? I've set www.pldev.org as a web address for
the Google site.
Thanks for explaining the frameset stuff. I agree that's no good and
we need proper A (or cname?) solution.
...
Re. the services you suggested (snipped) I requested an account on
host1free (and now Keeflex also) and don't mind trying the others
until we find something that matches what we want.
I should say if anyone is quietly waiting for the site to be set up
that choosing the hosting service is going to take longer than I
realised. Sorry about the delay. It seems to be unavoidable. The three
test sites (see earlier post) took quite a long time to set up. I
think it's worth taking enough time to find something that's easier to
use, if possible.
Bob, what do you make of the site that Jacko suggested, kodingen.com?
They have a good philosophy but didn't seem to support multiple
userids but it seems you have some ideas about that.
James
Rod Pemberton
> > server's IP address in the DNS A record for the domain, and have it
> > work.
> > This requires something like (in decreasing order of expected price) a
> > dedicated server, a virtual private server, or a virtual host in the
> > webserver (supported by all major web server software).
> >
> > From skimming the help, I couldn't figure out if Google pages actually
> > supports this. Same with Wiki-site.
>
> Would you like to try it? I've set www.pldev.org as a web address for
> the Google site.
>
This is what currently comes up (abbreviated...) for www.pldev.org via
WHOIS, DNS, reverse DNS, etc:
DNS for www.pldev.org:
A 174.120.120.152
MX 20 grey-area.mailhostingserver.com
CNAME empty
NS empty
PTR empty
SOA empty
reverse DNS for 174.120.120.152:
nitin.netkeysolutions.com
174.120.120.152 registers to:
ThePlanet.com Internet Services
pldev.org registers to/through:
Directi Internet Soluations
PrivacyProtect.org
DNS for grey-area.mailhostingserver.com
A 209.62.85.74
A 67.15.149.233
A 149.20.51.66
rev. DNS for 209.62.85.74:
anvil-us4.mailhostingserver.com
(reg. to ThePlanet.com)
rev. DNS for 67.15.149.233:
anvil-us3.mailhostingserver.com
(reg. to ThePlanet.com)
rev. DNS for 149.20.51.66:
sie-feed1.sql1.isc.org
(reg. to Internet Systems Consortium)
All ok?
RP
aury
wrote:
> "James Harris" <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c712ef2-eb0f-484b...@m27g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 5, 8:08 am, Robbert Haarman <comp.lang.m...@inglorion.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > What I am looking for is a hosting service where you can put the web
> > > server's IP address in the DNS A record for the domain, and have it
> > > work.
> > > This requires something like (in decreasing order of expected price) a
> > > dedicated server, a virtual private server, or a virtual host in the
> > > webserver (supported by all major web server software).
>
> > > From skimming the help, I couldn't figure out if Google pages actually
> > > supports this. Same with Wiki-site.
>
I see only this:
The previous page is sending you to an invalid url.
If you do not want to visit that page, you can return to the previous
page.
aury
> On Feb 6, 9:30 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notreplytome.cmm>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "James Harris" <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7c712ef2-eb0f-484b...@m27g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 5, 8:08 am, Robbert Haarman <comp.lang.m...@inglorion.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > What I am looking for is a hosting service where you can put the web
> > > > server's IP address in the DNS A record for the domain, and have it
> > > > work.
> > > > This requires something like (in decreasing order of expected price) a
> > > > dedicated server, a virtual private server, or a virtual host in the
> > > > webserver (supported by all major web server software).
>
> > > > From skimming the help, I couldn't figure out if Google pages actually
> > > > supports this. Same with Wiki-site.
>
by the way ucoz.com offer complete CMS hosting for free
without file size limitation...
James Harris
> On Feb 6, 9:30 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notreplytome.cmm>
...
> > > Would you like to try it? I've setwww.pldev.orgasa web address for
Sorry gents. I can see that what I said was confusing. It was a
message intended for Robbert. He has control of the DNS domain
records. I was saying that I'd set the Google site to accept/allow
www.pldev.org to be used but he would have to point the A or Cname
records appropriately. I didn't mean I'd changed the DNS entries.
Robbert would have to do that.
Apologies for the confusion.
James
James Harris
...
> by the way ucoz.com offer complete CMS hosting for free
> without file size limitation...
I'll take a look. What does CMS mean?
James
BGB
the above (blocking by IP) doesn't work if one has an ISP which causes
one IP to jump around often (say, every few hours or days or so...),
where then the IP is no longer effective to know who is who, only which
network they came from, and blocking an IP would mean blocking one
person one day and someone else the next.
this sort of jumping IP makes it difficult to keep a server up even with
dyndns, as by default it takes 4 hours to propagate an IP change, which
is not so good if ones' IP has just jumped ship.
or such...
aury
CMS is Content Managment System ---
something like Jomla etc...
James Harris
wrote:
> "James Harris" <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:e1b101df-d664-4ca4...@8g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 28, 6:58 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notreplytome.cmm>
> > wrote:
> > One thing that I've discovered difficult to find is the ability to
> > give people individual accounts.
>
> Well, hopefully, you recall that I'm against that... User accounts almost
> always require an active email account elsewhere in order to set them up. I
> haven't used an actual email account in about a decade. I understand I'm
> not the norm and should probably get a trash email somewhere.
I remember. If it helps ... I used Google to set up a sacrificial e-
mail address - i.e. something I could include in posts on the internet
but not care if it got bombarded with spam because I wouldn't use it
for e-mail. (In the event I found that the spam management on the
account is so good that I use the account for communication too.)
I can't remember why you don't set up a similar sacrificial email
account. It looks like one can be set up on Google without needing to
divulge an IP address or anything personal.
> There are thousands of sites I would've liked to have contributed a post or
> two. However, they all require you to setup an account to post. An account
> to post in addition to having an email account? An account to post a post
> or two? No way... That's just not happening, for me at least.
Agreed. I don't contribute to web-site forums in part for the same
reason.
> It's not
> worth the trouble to setup their account *even if* I had an active email
> account. So, for "passerby's" to your site, you'll run into the same
> problem, if your site uses account based access. Some guy in the know wants
> to fix one webpage or ask a question in a forum, gets frustrated with the
> need to setup an account to fix things or to ask for help, and so he leaves
> without fixing things or getting help... I'm for just connecting and doing,
> more like Wiki's such as Esolangs or a less restricted Wikipedia. In such a
> case, I'd rather not have my IP published as most Wiki's do, even if it's
> logged so the admin can control things, like banning some guy for too much
> "graffiti". E.g., I'd run the IP through a one-way hash and use that as the
> visible user ID. It's unique. It doesn't give hackers one more active IP
> to port scan, or let them know "where" a cablemodem is so they can attempt
> to hack it. The IP is (probably) logged and the site admin can see that if
> needed.
I hear what you say. To be clear, the site being proposed should *not*
include a forum. I'd rather keep to Usenet for that.
Unlike the current aodfaq ISTM that the proposed site about languages
may include significant parts which are opinion. For example, take a
look at the sample page at
http://pldev.wikispaces.com/book-prin-pl-bjm
where I made some comments - i.e. gave an opinion - on a certain book.
I think it's important that opinion is
a) flagged as a person's opinion, not as fact
b) protected from the 'adjustments' of others.
On that last point, if I'd expressed an opinion and put my name to it
I wouldn't want someone to change my comments and leave my name there.
Would anyone?
Given the above I think it's appropriate to include names or at least
userids. I wouldn't insist on it but it seems desirable in this case.
James
James Harris
Having looked, the site seems good but they don't apparently allow
dynamic page content which might be a bit limiting. They do allow just
part of their service to be used which means that their unlimited
files may come in handy to supplement something else (though I can't
think of a reason for storing large files at the moment).
Thanks for pointing them out.
James
Robbert Haarman
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:06:25AM -0800, James Harris wrote:
>
> Would you like to try it? I've set www.pldev.org as a web address for
> the Google site.
Do you know some page that explains how to go about assigning a
second-level domain (pldev.org in our case) to a Google Sites site?
I've tried telling my computer that 74.125.79.101 (one of the IP
addresses I get for sites.google.com) is the IP address for www.pldev.org,
but then, when I go to http://www.pldev.org/, I get redirected to Google's
home page. That's not the result I was looking for. :-)
> Thanks for explaining the frameset stuff. I agree that's no good and
> we need proper A (or cname?) solution.
A record, basically. CNAME is for when you want to define an alias for
a host; in our case, we just want to say that www.pldev.org (and probably
pldev.org) are ... whatever the actual IP address of the machine is.
> Bob, what do you make of the site that Jacko suggested, kodingen.com?
> They have a good philosophy but didn't seem to support multiple
> userids but it seems you have some ideas about that.
I have taken a look at it and even created an account. They seem to have
a lot of interesting keywords, but I couldn't really figure out what
services they offer or how one would go about using them. As far as I
understand, they have some really neat ideas about collaborative software
development and how you shouldn't have to pay a lot of money for that,
but I wasn't able to find any explanation of what they themselves offer
or how to use it. Perhaps it's in the videos, but I would like to have
text that I can read and use as a reference.
Regards,
Bob
Robbert Haarman
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:47:51AM -0800, James Harris wrote:
>
> First, what you mention above about user accounts sounds good but I'd
> be surprised if we'll be able to run arbitrary software. I guess the
> provider would want to maintain control over CPU usage for example.
There are usually some policies in place that disallow you from using up
unreasonable amounts of resources, or performing anything that is
against the law. However, I don't expect we will be running afoul of
those terms. :-)
As for arbitrary software, that's basically what CGI is. You upload some
executable (usually a Unix script) to the server, and the server runs that
every time the corresponding URL is requested. The script can do anything
you want - subject to the terms of service, of course. Authentication
is definitely within the realm of possibilities. And since this is
separate from the user accounts that the hosting service gives you
(which are typically system accounts that allow you to upload files),
there is no arbitrary limit to how many users you can authenticate
this way.
> I would very much like the ability to run server-side web page
> customisation backed by database access. I was thinking of something
> like PHP, JSP or ASP.
Speaking for myself, I don't like JSP, and have no experience with ASP.
I have extensive experience with older versions of PHP (up to version 4),
and although I enjoyed working with it at the time, I feel it has many
flaws, some of which hinder the development of all but the simplest systems,
while others introduce security holes. Of course, the perfect programming
language isn't there yet (I'm still working on that ;-) ), so perhaps
PHP is a fine choice for now. I prefer Ruby, Python, and Perl, though.
> Re. adverts it would be good to avoid them altogether but the hosting
> service has to get a benefit somehow. I don't mind single-line text
> adverts at the bottom of pages. Is that so bad? If the hosting service
> gets some benefit from the service they provide that suggests to me
> that the site is viable in the long term.
I don't have a problem with ads on the site, so long as we get to insert
them and we get to supply the code that inserts them. The problem I have
with ads that the service inserts is that they can and sometimes do break
your pages - validity of the HTML, layout of the page, or even the
functionality of the site.
Having said that, many hosting providers offer free hosting without
forcing you to use advertisements. So my vote is for going without
advertisements altogether.
> For quantities I can't imagine us really needing to store lots of data
> - detailed photos, videos etc - but I could be wrong.
That's my assessment, too. The same goes for the traffic we will generate,
I don't imagine it to be all that much. On the other hand, traffic is
something we shouldn't underestimate: even a site that doesn't get any
human traffic can generate 1000 hits a day. A single page can be a few
10s of kilobytes; pages generated by MediaWiki, for example, tend to be
about 60 KB each. Fetch those for 30 days in a month, and you're already
looking at (if I calculated correctly) about 2 GB of traffic, and that's
without images and external style sheets or JavaScript.
On the other hand, if the site ever becomes so successful that the amount
of traffic we generate becomes an issue, I won't mind paying a small amount
for hosting. And a little bit of money can get you a lot of traffic and
storage in the world of webhosting.
Regards,
Bob
James Harris
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:06:25AM -0800, James Harris wrote:
> > Would you like to try it? I've set www.pldev.org as a web address for
> > the Google site.
>
> Do you know some page that explains how to go about assigning a
> second-level domain (pldev.org in our case) to a Google Sites site?
Good question. I found this
http://sites.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en_GB&answer=99448
The pldev Google site is "outside of Google Apps" and I've done the
bit about adding www.pldev.org.
I tried to send an admin invitation to your inglorion e-mail so you
could see the Manage Site page but it wouldn't let me. It looks like I
could add another Google id as admin, though, if you have one.
...
> > Bob, what do you make of the site that Jacko suggested, kodingen.com?
> > They have a good philosophy but didn't seem to support multiple
> > userids but it seems you have some ideas about that.
>
> I have taken a look at it and even created an account. They seem to have
> a lot of interesting keywords, but I couldn't really figure out what
> services they offer or how one would go about using them. As far as I
> understand, they have some really neat ideas about collaborative software
> development and how you shouldn't have to pay a lot of money for that,
> but I wasn't able to find any explanation of what they themselves offer
> or how to use it. Perhaps it's in the videos, but I would like to have
> text that I can read and use as a reference.
The videos are not very good and, yes, there is little textual
explanation. I tried again with it but I've come to the conclusion
that while it might get better in the future it's not ready yet. Many
menu options that we might want say they are not available. I wouldn't
bother with kodingen any more for now.
James
Rod Pemberton
news:iimgvl$ekv$1...@news.albasani.net...
My IP is supposed to be static, like most of the Internet today. But, my
ISP changes it every year or few years, apparently for their needs. AFAICT,
they've not recycled any of the old IPs I've had. So, they let them idle
for some time before reuse, i.e., decades.
If you're on dial-up, then you could possibly be blocked temporarily. Even
so, you just log off and dial in again to get a different dynamicly assigned
IP. 5 minute fix. If your on broadband with round-robbin DHCP, you release
and renew your DHCP through your router, or you restart your cablemodem,
then you get assigned a different IP from the block of dynamic IPs they use.
2 minute fix. AIUI, it's usually a special request to setup round-robbin
DHCP for broadband. Either way, ISTM, that an odd set of circumstances
would need to coexist for you to get blocked due to someone else:
round-robbin or dynamic IPs which are less common today, another guy on same
IP sub-block, that guy using same website, the guy being aggravating enough
to be blocked, and/or using public or group computers: school, library,
work, etc.
> this sort of jumping IP makes it difficult to keep a server up even with
> dyndns, as by default it takes 4 hours to propagate an IP change, which
> is not so good if ones' IP has just jumped ship.
>
Well, we hope the IP they get is static or semi-static, i.e., doesn't change
for years at a time. You should probably only connect via the hostname
though.
Rod Pemberton
BGB
where I lived before, I had a cable modem, and IPs would usually be
stable for around 1-2 months or so (and resetting the modem would still
give the same IP, until at least the lease expires, or one manually does
release/renew in the router).
where I am living now, I have DSL (from Qwest), and there is no cable
where I live, only DSL, dialup, or satellite...
the DSL though tends to have endlessly changing IP addresses, and one
has to spend extra money to get a static IP address.
>> this sort of jumping IP makes it difficult to keep a server up even with
>> dyndns, as by default it takes 4 hours to propagate an IP change, which
>> is not so good if ones' IP has just jumped ship.
>>
>
> Well, we hope the IP they get is static or semi-static, i.e., doesn't change
> for years at a time. You should probably only connect via the hostname
> though.
>
well, in my case, I am using dyndns for providing the hostname, with it
being updated to my current IP (and using a server which sits on my
desk, basically an older laptop).
however, even with dyndns and a dynamic updater daemon (periodically
checks and sends the current IP back to dyndns), it is still hard to
keep the thing up sometimes.
but, the reason I run a server:
because it is much more painful trying to spend the large amounts of
time needed to upload files to remote servers (several hours uploading
something to an FTP server only to have it die with "operation timed
out" errors and similar...).
nicer would be if there were "reliable upload", where the upload would
simply reset the connection and resume in the face of errors, rather
than dying... but, preferable is to not bother. (about the only thing
more annoying is having to do uploads via SSH... as then one has to type
commands into a shell itself subject to ping times, which means "hit a
letter and wait", making even typing commands a bit of a chore...).
meanwhile, I can access my own server with a drive share, and send over
files at a not-absurdly-slow rate (since they only need to go over the LAN).
or such...
Rod Pemberton
> being updated to my current IP (and using a server which sits on my
> desk, basically an older laptop).
>
I seem to recall a site that would do that for you for free...
No-IP offers a free service for that:
http://www.no-ip.com/services/managed_dns/free_dynamic_dns.html
> but, the reason I run a server:
I and others just posted numerous links to reliable free servers. That's
the solution.
> because it is much more painful trying to spend the large amounts of
> time needed to upload files to remote servers (several hours uploading
> something to an FTP server only to have it die with "operation timed
> out" errors and similar...).
>
If problematic or limited bandwidth is the issue, running your own server
doesn't fix the issue. Your visitors have to connect through that
problematic bandwidth to connect your server.
Maybe you could upload to a faster, local site, then have the file pulled
from it by the destination server? E.g., browser upload to Rapidshare,
telnet/ssh to remote server, wget http from Rapidshare...
Do you get some free hosting with your account? E.g., IIRC, my ISP provides
some free storage space, personal home page, etc.
FYI, the Opera web-browser can be set to compress webpages via their
servers, then send the webpages to you compressed, i.e., less bandwidth, for
better browsing speeds. They call it "Opera Turbo". I'm on broadband so
haven't tried it. The Opera browser is very fast, as is.
> nicer would be if there were "reliable upload", where the upload would
> simply reset the connection and resume in the face of errors, rather
> than dying... but, preferable is to not bother.
FTP is resumable (rFTP). Well, most ftp servers are nowadays. You may need
to install a current ftp client. It'll say it's "resumable" or "reconnects"
etc.
Rod Pemberton
BGB
> "BGB"<cr8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> well, in my case, I am using dyndns for providing the hostname, with it
>> being updated to my current IP (and using a server which sits on my
>> desk, basically an older laptop).
>>
>
> I seem to recall a site that would do that for you for free...
>
> No-IP offers a free service for that:
> http://www.no-ip.com/services/managed_dns/free_dynamic_dns.html
>
dyndns also does this for free...
the problem is, however, that it takes several hours for it to update
for a changed IP (for the change to propagate through all of the
servers, ...), which is a problem if the IP changes often...
>
>> but, the reason I run a server:
>
> I and others just posted numerous links to reliable free servers. That's
> the solution.
>
for what James is doing, yes...
>> because it is much more painful trying to spend the large amounts of
>> time needed to upload files to remote servers (several hours uploading
>> something to an FTP server only to have it die with "operation timed
>> out" errors and similar...).
>>
>
> If problematic or limited bandwidth is the issue, running your own server
> doesn't fix the issue. Your visitors have to connect through that
> problematic bandwidth to connect your server.
>
yes, but it is much easier to pull things down than to push them up to
FTP, since most browsers have resume, and there are also things like
download managers...
for the most part, the server can be accessed fast enough for plain-text
content, although people downloading stuff may take a while (due in part
to slow ADSL upload speeds...).
> Maybe you could upload to a faster, local site, then have the file pulled
> from it by the destination server? E.g., browser upload to Rapidshare,
> telnet/ssh to remote server, wget http from Rapidshare...
>
uploading to anywhere is slow...
this is why I run my own server, then I can just push out content
whenever at LAN speeds...
although, the remote server + wget option is an idea, and would be nice
if it could be automated, say by using a shell script, where I could
then just have it pull all the contents from my personal server...
> Do you get some free hosting with your account? E.g., IIRC, my ISP provides
> some free storage space, personal home page, etc.
>
not that I know of...
> FYI, the Opera web-browser can be set to compress webpages via their
> servers, then send the webpages to you compressed, i.e., less bandwidth, for
> better browsing speeds. They call it "Opera Turbo". I'm on broadband so
> haven't tried it. The Opera browser is very fast, as is.
>
well, DSL is broadband, technically...
and, it works well enough for browsing, it is just that DSL has much
slower upload speeds than download speeds, like say, 1.5Mbps down and
384kbps up.
granted, the main problem with remote SSH is not usually the bandwidth,
but that typing is very painful with, say, 1000-3000 ping...
granted, this was in the past when using sourceforge, which was the main
source of my slowness woes (it could be that other hosting services
would be faster, or maybe even SF has since improved...).
>> nicer would be if there were "reliable upload", where the upload would
>> simply reset the connection and resume in the face of errors, rather
>> than dying... but, preferable is to not bother.
>
> FTP is resumable (rFTP). Well, most ftp servers are nowadays. You may need
> to install a current ftp client. It'll say it's "resumable" or "reconnects"
> etc.
>
ok, in the past I had usually done FTP via Windows Explorer, and I think
at one point I had used the "mount FTP server as a drive letter" option...
just, in the past, as soon as any connection problem popped up, whatever
was being done (a file copy, ...) would just die with an error message.
I don't know if Explorer is any better in Win7 in these regards (not tried).
hadn't considered using a dedicated FTP client.
aury
wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:46 am, James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ... basic requirements ...
>
> Just an update for anyone who is interested....
>
> Here are three providers that all satisfy the basic requirements
> (listed earlier). I've set up some example content. Don't expect it to
> be complete in any sense. It is just a few partial pages for testing
> and illustration purposes.
>
> http://pldev.wikispaces.com/
> http://pldev.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
> http://sites.google.com/site/pldevel/
>
> The last one does not allow a name of five characters as site name so
> I had to lengthen it but at least it allows an external domain name to
> be added so it is also available (temporarily) at
>
> http://www.pldev.tk/
>
> Each of the providers has its good points and bad points. I would like
> something a bit more advanced than what I've seen so far but that
> be more flexible. They are having problems creating new accounts just
> now but if I can get an account I'll try that out and report back.
>
> James
James why simply fing good free hosting and place forum
on this site ,this wiki board is same as google groups
boards,there is no better options for discussion then is
forum boards in first place becose you have # code options....
James Harris
...
> James why simply fing good free hosting and place forum
> on this site ,this wiki board is same as google groups
> boards,there is no better options for discussion then is
> forum boards in first place becose you have # code options....
If I understand your comment please be aware that the new site is not
for a forum. See
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.misc/msg/83522bb381ddca25?hl=en
For a number of reasons I'm not proposing we take traffic away from
Usenet forums. And while the site would be a good place to write-up
*conclusions* of discussions I'd like to keep the hurly-burly of
discussions themselves somewhere else so the content of the site
itself is more considered.
Thanks for the suggestions. We are trying different hosting services
just now. The best I have seen so far is
It does a lot right, period. However, it doesn't allow a database and
gives no access to the bare HTML or dynamic page content or scripts
etc which a few of us would like.
Some hosting services which provide the above facilities set up
accounts quickly - and have been tried - but others seem to take a
long time. I think I'm waiting for no less than three accounts at the
moment. I will report back once I have something more to add.
James
James Harris
wrote:
> On Jan 27, 11:46 am, James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ... basic requirements ...
>
> Just an update for anyone who is interested....
>
> Here are three providers that all satisfy the basic requirements
> (listed earlier). I've set up some example content. Don't expect it to
> be complete in any sense. It is just a few partial pages for testing
> and illustration purposes.
>
> http://pldev.wikispaces.com/
> http://pldev.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
> http://sites.google.com/site/pldevel/
>
> The last one does not allow a name of five characters as site name so
> I had to lengthen it but at least it allows an external domain name to
> be added so it is also available (temporarily) at
>
> http://www.pldev.tk/
Just a FYI. There is another test site at
This one is on hosting service Heliohost. Early days but so far in
terms of facilities it looks extremely good....
James
aury
So still nothing concret?
There are to much talk but on the end of topic nothing.
tell me why im not surprised?
James Harris
> On Feb 13, 8:28 pm, James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com>
...
> > Just a FYI. There is another test site at
>
> > http://www.pldev.org/
>
> > This one is on hosting service Heliohost. Early days but so far in
> > terms of facilities it looks extremely good....
...
> So still nothing concret?
> There are to much talk but on the end of topic nothing.
I have been very busy in my 'other' life but you are right that an
update is due. I'll post one in due course.
> tell me why im not surprised?
Because you are a cynic. :-(
James
aury
James Harris
OK Here's a (long-awaited) update. I know this post could be quite
long so I'll try and keep it readable.
To recap, we had (and still have) pldev test pages set up on three
services
http://pldev.wikispaces.com
http://pldev.wiki-site.com
http://sites.google.com/site/pldevel
and I was looking at setting up a site at
which is hosted, currently, by Heliohost.
The Heliohost site exists, presently, in the same form as the three
others, i.e. it holds some test pages. But where the first three sites
limit the forms in which we could post Heliohost allows greater
control with such things as: access to edit the raw HTML (rather than
just text and image content), server-side scripting, backend databases
and others.
There are two key problems with Heliohost. The first is that although
it provides a graphical front end with a file manager and editing
facilities these are only available to one userid. That userid
effectively has admin rights and could do anything to the site
including changing the admin password, deleting the site etc.
The second problem is that admin of the site can be howlingly slow. It
can take many minutes to click from one screen to the next and too
often times out altogether.
The first problem can be avoided somewhat by defining FTP userids. FTP
does work but, as well as sending passwords in the clear, establishing
a connection is a bit of a hit and miss affair. Sometimes it works
but, IME, more often it times out before the FTP session is
established.
The speed problems seem to be particularly acute when authenticating
userids. Page display is not the fastest but, so far, much faster than
authentication and more reliable.
Hoping we could deal with both problems by carrying out the admin
ourselves I've been looking at content management systems or,
preferably, lighter weight content management frameworks.
Firstly, Wordpress: its centre of gravity is the forum and it seems
inextricably wedded to that concept which is no good. As discussed
before we have comp.lang.misc as a forum.
Second, Drupal. I've tried this on a home web server and while I'm
sure it is a good product,
1. there is a lot to learn about how to structure data before anyone
can begin to publish information and I think that would put off anyone
who wanted to edit pages unless he or she already knew the system,
2. it is basically a big product and apart from any impact its size
might have on performance rather than trying to strip out a lot of
stuff we don't need I'd rather start with something slimline and add
to it as we want,
3. when I found that some of the masses of config menu options didn't
work alarm bells rang. We could spend ages troubleshooting Drupal and
not have gained anything.
Third, Joomla. I've downloaded a copy but so far haven't tested it.
Instead, I've been looking into the possibilities of a home-brew
option. To reduce reader fatigue I'll post about that separately. And,
I think, from a language design point of view it is a more interesting
topic.
James
James Harris
wrote:
...
> I've been looking into the possibilities of a home-brew
> option. To reduce reader fatigue I'll post about that separately.
I've started another thread about this, entitled Editing pldev.
> And,
> I think, from a language design point of view it is a more interesting
> topic.
Interesting though it is I'll not follow this up at the moment. But
having learned a bit of Javascript and some PHP I might be a bit
better placed to contribute to future threads and will be my usual
opinionated self. :-)
James
