Website not allowing revlets

[Brian Yennie]

One option if you just want "cheap" file hosting of any file type is  
Amazon S3. It's not free and you won't be able to run any server side  
scripts, but you can't beat the pay-as-you-go pricing. If you just  
want a couple gigabytes of storage and a a couple gigabytes of  
bandwidth every month, it would run you less than 50 cents:

http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing

There are a fair number of FTP clients and a FireFox plugin for  
managing your files, and you can always delete them and move on if you  
want.

As an example, I've been hosting all of the files for SifakaWorld.com  
on S3 for about $150 / month, and we're doing somewhere around  
15,000,000 requests and creeping up on 1TB of downloads every month  
(ballpark figures).

FWIW. There are of course a zillion hosting options out there, and  
this is purely file storage. But it's damn handy!

> stephen barncard wrote:
>>> How many hosting services are going to behave in the same way?
>>>
>>
>>
>> only the cheesiest. I have never heard of a hosting service do such  
>> a thing.
>> What if one were creating their own file type?
>>
> I tried uploading a file;  Gorgonzola.cheese  and it didn't accept  
> that either.  :)
>
> What I have done, constructively, is send a request to  
> permit .revlet files
> to the hosting service.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> May be the first thing everybody ought to do today, after brushing  
> their teeth,
> is see whether their hosting service goes "Moo" when a revlet is  
> uploaded.
>
> "only the cheesiest" might be an underestimation.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Prior to "landing" at my current hosting service I worked my way  
> through a whole
> slew of providers; some who permitted JPG, GIF and PNG files ONLY!
>
> Now, I am at the cheap (as in 'FREE') end of the spectrum; what is  
> unclear to me
> is how a hosting service profits by restricting the types of files  
> it can host; especially,
> as in the case of my service, where paying for an upgrade merely  
> gives one more
> storage space, but no other possibilitis (i.e. no restriction on  
> file types).
>> -------------------------
>> Stephen Barncard
>> San Francisco
>> http://barncard.com
>>
>>
>> 2009/7/23 Richmond Mathewson <richmondmathewson at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>> I made a test stack and built a web revlet: the html
>>> page ran extremely smoothly in Safari when it was on
>>> my Hard drive.
>>>
>>> When I uploaded the html page and the revlet to my
>>> website, the revlet vanished because the web hoster would
>>> not allow files of that type . . . something that needs to be
>>> investigated.
>>>
>>> How many hosting services are going to behave in the same way?