4 ms·
Agree. I was surprised they overlooked this one. Perhaps they couldn't think of an appropriate metaphor. Prison? Orphanage?
by josephcooney 15y ago
Agree. I was surprised they overlooked this one. Perhaps they couldn't think of an appropriate metaphor. Prison? Orphanage?
- jpdoctor 15y ago> Prison? Orphanage? Whorehouse.
- Lazare 15y agoI'd suggest slum. It's a place to sleep, but you have no security and no property rights. It's generally unpleasant, and the whole thing could burn down at any moment. And you have (practically) no recourse if you don't like what you're getting. Even the best hosts have laughable SLAs (if they have one at all), and no meaningful performance guarantees.
- lsc 15y agoShow me any reasonably priced service that has a SLA worth reading. Nearly all retail providers have some sort of "if we have downtime, if you complain, we will refund you for the time you were down" SLA. The pennies you get don't compensate you for the time it took to complain, much less the lost business from being down. Look at all the companies advertising a 100% SLA; I mean, even 99.9% is unrealistic in most cases without some very expensive hardware or application-layer redundancy.
- huskyr 15y agoWhen you're doing something even remotely technically interesting shared hosting isn't an option. However, if you need something for, you know, the restaurant down the street, your nephew's school blog, a small shop that justs wants a Google Map and a contact form i don't think shared hosting is such a bad option. It's really cheap ($20 for a VPS might be low for you, but it isn't for your nephew), doesn't matter that much when it's down, usually easy to set up, etc.
- josephcooney 15y agoYes. I'm not disputing the usefulness of shared hosting, in fact I called out the fact that it had originally been omitted from the list.