h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

While I assume that all are familiar with services such as Geocities I am hoping that some of those reading this will be aware of some more unusual hosting options and will post them here

To get the ball rolling here are two that I know of

http://www.mycgiserver.com/
This free service focuses 100 percent on providing Java deployment services, for historical reasons ONLY its name contains a reference to the so-called CGI. Note that this service DOES NOT SUPPORT Perl, PHP or other scripting languages!

http://sdf.lonestar.org/ or [Unsuitable Link removed by Moderator]
SDF offer a “Shell Account” on a Public Access Unix Server. This is very much a option.
A “Shell Account” gives the user access to the server command line via either Telnet or SSH (i.e. you have remote access to another computer where you can write & run programmes), different levels of Membership are available with basic membership being Free. Validated members get 20MB of advert free web-space (plus 20MB of home space for local storage & 20MB of storage for e-mail), and can access there e-mail using UNIX programmes such as Pine or Mutt or via web-mail ([Unsuitable link removed by Moderator]). For ARPA Members the limits go up to 100MB and you can access a lot more UNIX programs AND you can run CGI scripts (perl, python, ruby, et cetera) on your web-site.

So, anybody know of any other intresting hosts

[Unsuitable link removed by Moderator]

This seems to be the free site with CGI allowed offering the most storage space (50MB). I've never got around to coding my actual website, so they deleted my account when it went unused for a month. Must get around to getting a new one.

What the smeg is deemed as an Unsuitable link??

I don't know why mine was deemed unsuitable, but it was just a link to virtualave (you should be able to figure out how).

You were referring to http://www.virtualave.net/

as to why perhaps because the site is written in html 4 (see F63189?thread=198928&post=2245700#p2245700 )

Hey! some dude in a bikini pointed me here from a more popular thread.

Here's the post I was asked to put here.
"Textonly doesn't do it for me. I prefer turning off pictures in my browser.

I found a good hosting place that offers free subdomains last night. They support cgi as well

I wonder if it gets moderated (I'm not advertising, I promise)

www.netfirms.com"

You get 25MB and CGI - the only problem is that the only way to upload is ftp, which I can only do at home becaue read/write ftp access is blocked at work.

You could always write your own cgi browser based ftp package. That usually gets around ftp blocks.

*sigh*

Gratuitous and Shameless, I know, but [Unsuitable link removed by Moderator]

Here's the link clickable variety...

[Unsuitable link removed by Moderator]

aka are you something to do wiv this enterprise

Naughty, naughty aka.

Frankie

(who still needs to fix that recursive script mentioned in other thread *hint hint*).

Unsuitable link

Do I wanna know

You bet...

Okay, how come most of the links seem to get moderated away?

I know that unsuitable links should be, I even agree with it. But, if a page about website design has a forum about website hosts (notice the unusual lack of topic drift here) and in that forum there is a link to a recommended host (still on the topic of the page, forum and thread) how is that deemed unsuitable?

Fair enough that one of our (esteemed) group has an interest in the enterprise, but so what? They didn't exactly spam did they? It was, in my own humble opinion, a relevant and not too biased link.

Can we have it back please?

The link removed in Post 2 has been repeated and allowed in post 5
(no I can't explain the madness behind that one)

as to post 8 & 9

I've been asked to come and have a word about disappearing links in this thread.

While we don't discuss individual Moderation issues on site, I can let you know that the links were failed because they are commercial. Regardless of being on topic or not, linking to purely commercial sites is not allowed on h2g2.

If you read the <./>HouseRules</.>, you'll see that Commercial links are included in this rule - Only include suitable URLs in your contributions.

I hope that helps everyone to understand why the links were removed.

That is going to make this thread difficult

Can you define commercial

For instance I would normally describe the BBC web-site as a commercial web-site as I consider the BBC a commercial organisation.

The easiest way to explain it is to tell you the way we decide whether a link is commercial or not.

If it has a shopping basket on it - ie you can buy something directly from that page - it's commercial.

If it has prices on it - it's commercial (although a review of, for example, an album that included the price would not be, as that price would be for information, rather than trade purposes).

If it's describing a product or service with the aim of selling it - it's commercial.

The BBC website that h2g2 lives on does not sell any products or services.

How dose this tie-in wiv jimsters comments? "We allow links to commercial sites only if it's not directly linking into the shop area of the site itself. If it links to an information page run from a commercial site but with no evidence of direct commerce present on the page, that would probably be approved (as long as the content is appropriate)." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F47997?thread=195292#p2187685 ) How do you define a shop area, I thought that this meant that there must be a shopping basket or other other direct purchasing mechanism. A to the comment "If it has prices on it" means that 95% of the web cannot be linked to due to the prolification of banner advertising:-(

I forgot about the commercial rule!

I heard stated URLs are allowed, ie: bbc.co.uk, if h2g2 was commercial, would be ok, also, if bbc.co.uk was commercial, linking to http://www.bbc.co.uk like that, would get moderated?

Am I right? If so, [Unsuitable link removed by Moderator] was my link, although I, nor any representative of the BBC or h2g2 can be responsible for what you may find therein on said website, or particularly endorse said products..

Would that be ok?