Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by simbalion 3575 days ago
I'm not saying a VPS is not appropriate for a static HTML web-page, but there are perfectly capable VPSes avaible for $3.50 to $5.

I'm not in agreement with many of the commenters regarding CDNs. I don't believe in a free lunch. Free software is one thing, but CDNs require infrastructure, which incur costs. Somewhere, the people offering those services expect to make those costs back. You'll either pay for it directly, or you'll pay for leeching off someone else's bill in karma. For a very tiny, low-traffic, low-bandwidth website, I think not using a CDN is perfectly reasonable.
1 comments
ajdlinux 3575 days ago
Economies of scale...
link
dragontamer 3574 days ago
Get a decent shared host.

Just because Godaddy sucks doesn't mean that all shared hosting sucks. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is fine for most people, or Amazon S3 if you're into AWS / webgui stuff.

If you're actually using a decent amount of bandwidth (ie: image hosting), something like Hawkhost.com would be good. Just gotta stay away from EIG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group), which is a conglomerate that's buying up all the shared hosts and making them crappy.

Bam. Now you have economies of scale AND far cheaper hosting than any VPS.

link
simbalion 3573 days ago
Keeping in mind that you can get a VPS for as low as $3.50 per month, I don't see that there is ever a reason to use shared hosting, and several reasons not to, performance is only one of them.

If you're website is that unimportant, then you could probably get by with any free hosting services where your page would be yourpage.serviceprovider.tld

link