3 ms·

Dreamhost have a pretty bad reputation, but its amazingly good value as long as you understand a few things. You arent going to be live 24/7, in the 4 years or

Dreamhost have a pretty bad reputation, but its amazingly good value as long as you understand a few things. You arent going to be live 24/7, in the 4 years or so ive been with them I have been down 3 times for more than a day, and a few sporadic is it down / is it up moments. It isnt going to be the fastest connection in the world, mine is reasonably fast, but it has slow moments. people hosting business critical applications are just asking for trouble. but past that, you have a lot of preinstalled software, svn takes a minute to set up, ssh access which you can install most things you want on and a silly amount of bandwidth / space. its pretty perfect for a first host, to put a blog up and share images folder etc. Part of their bad reputation is from how transparent they are, they are honest about when they go down and what the fault is, their sense of humour about everything grates some people, but I appreciate not being given a canned coorporate response

krschultz 18y ago
It has been recommended a lot on hacker news before, I didn't realize it had a negative connotation. I just signed up for a year, previously was hosting off a local machine for my personal stuff, for $10 a year I'll make it someone else's problem. We use Engine Yard for our business stuff, but can't beat this for personal.
- lux 18y ago
  For personal or non-critical sites, Dreamhost are great. Their reputation stems from the fact that they publish their issues openly on a blog with comments enabled and zero moderation (dreamhoststatus.com). So the kicking and screaming that goes on when sites are down (and all shared hosts go down about the same on average) is publicly visible. This both damages their reputation compared to hosts without such a public forum for venting, and strengthens it on the honesty side of things too. I've used them for several years though for non-critical sites and I've been as happy with them as with any other shared host (and I've used quite a few over the years).

krschultz 18y ago

It has been recommended a lot on hacker news before, I didn't realize it had a negative connotation. I just signed up for a year, previously was hosting off a local machine for my personal stuff, for $10 a year I'll make it someone else's problem. We use Engine Yard for our business stuff, but can't beat this for personal.

lux 18y ago
For personal or non-critical sites, Dreamhost are great. Their reputation stems from the fact that they publish their issues openly on a blog with comments enabled and zero moderation (dreamhoststatus.com). So the kicking and screaming that goes on when sites are down (and all shared hosts go down about the same on average) is publicly visible. This both damages their reputation compared to hosts without such a public forum for venting, and strengthens it on the honesty side of things too. I've used them for several years though for non-critical sites and I've been as happy with them as with any other shared host (and I've used quite a few over the years).