Re:You don't even actually save money by using clo (Score 1)

This post is completely retarded on so many levels, let me explain.

Yes, Amazon's prices are slightly more expensive on a point-to-point basis, but they're completely different models and cannot be compared directly. Amazon costs more because the technology is far more advanced than something traditionally used. This requires more engineering to design and run, therefore increasing the cost. The savings comes from services that have irregular usage patterns. You're only paying for what you use, where as with a more traditional hosting model, you're paying for your maximum commit, or rather the amount of resources you need for your peak traffic. The rest of the time you're paying for resources you're not using.

If you know exactly how much resources your service will consume then sure, something not-cloud will be cheaper. But if your service is fairly dynamic by nature then suddenly it gets a whole lot more competitive. If your service levels vary widely, then Amazon quickly becomes the most fiscally responsible choice.

For file hosting, the suggestion of using shared hosts has to be the absolute worst solution ever proposed. In fact, this solution is so bad I question your "7 years of solid hosting experience" and also your common sense as a human being.

Shared hosts all have a few things in common:

1. Disallow file hosting. Practically every shared host explicitly forbids file hosting on their shared plans. Doing so will get your account suspended.
2. They're unreliable, you share a server with hundreds of other customers and just 1 could destroy the speed and reliability of the connections to your content.
3. Their HTTPd services are configured to run websites, not serve files. The memory footprints for serving many simultaneous files is drastically larger than it should be on one of these hosts.

You seem to have no concept of the difference between the "bandwidth" you buy from a shared host and the "bandwidth" you buy from a real solution.

"OmG, Dreamhost offers unlimited storage and transfer, why doesn't Sourceforge move their entire website to them for like $6 bucks a month?!?!"

Is not too far of a stretch of what you sound like to anyone with half a clue.

To address your specific example, here is a quote from Dreamhost ToS:

What's not allowed in "Unlimited"? Basically, sites whose essential purpose is to use disk or bandwidth.

And here's a quote from Bluehost:

Please note, however, that the BlueHost.Com service is designed to host websites . BlueHost.Com does NOT provide unlimited space for online storage, backups, or archiving of electronic files, documents, log files, etc., and any such prohibited use of the Services will result in the termination of Subscriber's account, with or without notice.

Yup, they both disallow file hosting. Never read a ToS before? Try running one of these nasties by your lawyer before signing up next time, you'll be surprised at what they say.

Any company with the sole purpose of having an Internet prescence should be using a CDN to distribute their content, period. There's no excuse for even the smallest of startups now with the drastically falling prices.

It's not even all about the price. Using a proper file serving service instead of "cheap shared accounts" will increase the speed and reliability of the connections. Try pumping out tons of throughput from a shared package, and then from a CDN... it's not even a competition.

Cliffnotes: Poster is a drastically misinformed.

(notes: my apologies if this post sounds condescending or offensive, it's not meant to do anything but expose the truth and to stop the spreading of bad information)