"One of the biggest issues involved with becoming a web publisher is the question of hosting. With an internet clogged with false hosting review sites, hosting companies trying to rip you off, and hosting companies run by 14 year olds, the majority of web publishers are at the mercy of random chance when it comes to finding a quality host. To solve this huge problem and to grant freedom to all, we have come up with 75 extremely specific steps that will get you up and running with a *nix box (running FreeBSD), along with the most recent versions of Apache, Perl, PHP, and MySQL."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-08
I picked an ISP that allows servers. It is not immoral, illegal, or against *my* TOS to host servers.
I do not condone violating contracts. I also do not condone equating contract violations with breaking the law. That's way over the top. Failing to rewind a videotape before returning it to the rental shop is a violation of the Terms of Service. Stealing the tape is a violation of the law. TOS != Law.
People should read and understand contracts before agreeing to them, and find another vendor if they don't like the terms. That's why I switched to an ISP that offers static IPs, allows servers, does not block ports, and has no traffic quota. I pay a little more, but only a little - it's still a personal, not commercial, account. It is possible to host a web site on your home computer without breaking any rules of any type.
The assumption should be that an Internet Service Provider provides access to all Internet services, not a restricted subset. If not, call them something else, like a Web Browsing Provider, or WebTV, or AOL.
You may have given away your ability to run servers, but you shouldn't assume everyone else has.
Member since:
2005-12-04
Ok, I'll concede that EULA was the wrong term, but come on! Just because you might not get caught doesn't make it right. The practice of knowingly breaking rules to which you agreed to operate by should not be condoned and is very much the reason why providers start making life so miserable by locking things down. I think it's one thing to have a web server for *personal* access only on a home ISP account that forbids web services for commercial purposes, but that's not what's being talked about here. The article specifically talks about being a web developer and having a secure space to host sites which implies (to me) public access sites. If I misread, I apologize.
I definately wouldn't judge anyone for doing this, but I don't think it should be publically condoned. And people wonder why ISPs start blocking ports! It's because people abuse them.