Now that Trevor and I have the money to contract with a web hosting service, we’re looking for a host to, uh, host us. We saw Mark Pilgrim’s endorsement of CornerHost, and Mark’s word carries us a long way. Still, we’d like to have considered an alternative or two before we sign on the line.


We’re also looking for an emblem (currently in the running: a hoopoe, or a wheel-within-a-wheel, as in Ezekiel’s vision). We’re thinking about the design of the front page (impressed by a recent spate of handsomely-designed pages with a banner/logo at top, and a three-column layout, of which the left column is usually empty. Megnut’s subway motif is a great idea; Dooce or Textism’s layout appeals greatly.
All suggestions welcome.
Posted by AKMA at February 21, 2003 08:49 PM | TrackBackAs long as you're not scared off by the copious misspellings on their website, I've had pretty good luck with http://www.unixhoster.com/ I mention it because the prices are quite a bit lower than CornerHost--I get SSH, MySQL, 200MB of space, PHP, etc., for $10 a month ($30/quarter, actually).
Posted by: Chris at February 22, 2003 10:55 AMI've had really good luck with my current host, and some of my friends have also signed up with them as well. The company's name is DreamHost and you can find them on the web at http://www.dreamhost.com . Best of luck.
Posted by: Jason at February 24, 2003 08:37 AMTry out FR&T. I have been with them for 4 years. I hardley ever get down time and the services they provide cannot be beaten. They will even set up a server for you, with your on IP, your own brand new server to your name, and a domain name. They do all of this for various prices depending on what you want. They also have hosting packages that start at 2 buck PERIOD, no monthy fees, no yearly fees.. Though that would be limited, most likely for you, they have even corporate plans for say 50 bucks per month with a free domain, and all the stuff under the sun included.
Try them out. They have a referal program so let them know that "CHRIS" refered you ;)
the URL is www.frandt.com, good luck!
Posted by: Chris at September 13, 2003 01:08 AMWell, they charge some pretty good prices at DealHostUSA.com. You might want to check it out. It's a pretty good deal for $24 a year. That includes 250MB space and 1 GB monthly bandwidth, which is way better than others I've seen so far.
Posted by: Robert at December 5, 2003 10:54 PMLet's take a moment to reexamine that. What we've done here is create two variables. The first variable is in the Heap, and we're storing data in it. That's the obvious one. But the second variable is a pointer to the first one, and it exists on the Stack. This variable is the one that's really called favoriteNumber, and it's the one we're working with. It is important to remember that there are now two parts to our simple variable, one of which exists in each world. This kind of division is common is C, but omnipresent in Cocoa. When you start making objects, Cocoa makes them all in the Heap because the Stack isn't big enough to hold them. In Cocoa, you deal with objects through pointers everywhere and are actually forbidden from dealing with them directly.
Posted by: Faustinus at January 13, 2004 04:31 AMThe Stack is just what it sounds like: a tower of things that starts at the bottom and builds upward as it goes. In our case, the things in the stack are called "Stack Frames" or just "frames". We start with one stack frame at the very bottom, and we build up from there.
Posted by: Agnes at January 13, 2004 04:31 AMTo address this issue, we turn to the second place to put variables, which is called the Heap. If you think of the Stack as a high-rise apartment building somewhere, variables as tenets and each level building atop the one before it, then the Heap is the suburban sprawl, every citizen finding a space for herself, each lot a different size and locations that can't be readily predictable. For all the simplicity offered by the Stack, the Heap seems positively chaotic, but the reality is that each just obeys its own rules.
Posted by: Augustine at January 13, 2004 04:31 AMThis variable is then used in various lines of code, holding values given it by variable assignments along the way. In the course of its life, a variable can hold any number of variables and be used in any number of different ways. This flexibility is built on the precept we just learned: a variable is really just a block of bits, and those bits can hold whatever data the program needs to remember. They can hold enough data to remember an integer from as low as -2,147,483,647 up to 2,147,483,647 (one less than plus or minus 2^31). They can remember one character of writing. They can keep a decimal number with a huge amount of precision and a giant range. They can hold a time accurate to the second in a range of centuries. A few bits is not to be scoffed at.
Posted by: Griffin at January 13, 2004 09:57 AMThis variable is then used in various lines of code, holding values given it by variable assignments along the way. In the course of its life, a variable can hold any number of variables and be used in any number of different ways. This flexibility is built on the precept we just learned: a variable is really just a block of bits, and those bits can hold whatever data the program needs to remember. They can hold enough data to remember an integer from as low as -2,147,483,647 up to 2,147,483,647 (one less than plus or minus 2^31). They can remember one character of writing. They can keep a decimal number with a huge amount of precision and a giant range. They can hold a time accurate to the second in a range of centuries. A few bits is not to be scoffed at.
Posted by: Anthony at January 13, 2004 09:57 AMThis code should compile and run just fine, and you should see no changes in how the program works. So why did we do all of that?
Posted by: Jerman at January 13, 2004 09:58 AM