Talk:Shared web hosting service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Cleanup
The article is somewhat a mess:
- Includes info on what I think is two different subjects - shared hosting as a service, and the technical matters of virtual hosting.
- The section on virtual hosting is not very good. I've made some edits, but it needs more work - I think it is very difficult for someone not familiar with the subject to understand the contents as of now.
Personally, I think the section on virtual hosting should be made an own article and the information there be rewritten to make it available to a wider audience. Comments? --Gosub 14:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
* There is also the redundant Virtual_host page which covers the same material. Merge it.
[edit] Whipping into shape
I've merged the related articles, whipped it into shape, and made it part of the new Internet hosting service series. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-12 22:40Z
[edit] specific hosts
I removed the refs to Interland and Ipowerweb under control panel types--they are specific hosts and gives them free advert space. The ipowerweb was added by an IP, which was their office:
whois 216.207.124.226
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[whois.arin.net]
Qwest Communications Corporation QWEST-INET-7 (NET-216-206-0-0-1)
216.206.0.0 - 216.207.255.255
I POWER WEB Q0715-216-207-124-0 (NET-216-207-124-0-1)
216.207.124.0 - 216.207.124.255
Thanks.· XP · 21:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Virtual hosting
- against: this article is about virtual hosting of a Web service. Virtual hosting in general also includes other Internet services such as email, XMPP that all can be virtual hosted.NaturalBornKiller 18:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: different things. · XP · 19:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cut out control panel info
- The entire discussion of control panels and intellectual property might be better served by having its own article - something like 'many shared hosting services offer basic system administration through a (link)web-based control panel(/link). Then on that page one could discuss the whole IP thing, as well as offering a more complete description of the types of things people can do with those services/applications. Thoughts? Odoketa 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Cons'
I didn't like the use of the word 'Cons' for 'Disadvantages'. It's valid, but a touch of a colloquialism. 'Disadvantages' should be ok? =)Gekedo 15:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
