Servers and domain names

>>58639850
>godaddy
don't do that. Don't even search for a domain name there, they'll snatch it so that you can't register it for less from another company. Use Namecheap.

>>58639873
>don't do that. Don't even search for a domain name there, they'll snatch it so that you can't register it for less from another company. Use Namecheap.

This. GoDaddy is pure trash.

>>58639873
Alright name a few more good sites for buying domains then tell me what's next. I of course will go for .com because it's the most common.

>>58639873
Don't use domain dot com either. They will harass the shit out of you when you let your domain expire and rather than just letting it go they post your personal info in the whois database after the privacy guard expires.

>>58639873
Yeah, namecheap is amazing.

>>58639850
You don't need no fancy hosting. Just get something basic, or host your own. Find yourself a cheap VPS on lowendbox and you'll be good.

>>58640275
hosting != domain

>>58640275
is it possible to host without an static ip?

>>58640484
This is called dynamic DNS and it can be done. Generally won't work from a home internet line though, most providers block inbound 80 and 443.

Do what he says and get a VPS instead of trying to be cheap. You can get one that's more than enough to handle a low-volume website, with a static IP, for less than the cost of a dinner out per month.

>>58640484
Yes it's doable. Some domain providers allow you to change DNS records via API, so you can update regularly from your home PC or router if your IP changes. Mind you, these changes can take up to a few hours until they properly propagata. So don't host your 'always on' website on a DSL line that changes IP every 24 hours. Sending email from a home IP will almost always be caught in Spam as well, so that won't work.

>>58640275
>lowendbox
Sure they are cheap servers and they will work for a while, many are behind NAT (so much fun), but not super reliable and in a year your host suddenly disappears.

Get some $3-5 VPS from a known provider, DigitalOcean or Hetzner or whatever.

>>58639850
buy domain from namecheap with coupon code

if you don't want to overpay for VPS use OVH or Arubacloud

>>58640572
Dude I got 2 cheap VPS (< 12€ annually) and both had no outage yet. They both expire in may.

>>58639850
fuck godaddy, namecheap or gandi are your best bets

wtf are you hosting that you need a dedicated server for? you're probably fine with shared hosting from dreamhost or a VPS from digitalocean/linode/vultr

if you can get away with it, i'd suggest building a static site and hosting it on S3. i have a few people paying me 35/month for "hosting" when their sites are costing me 70 cents a month on S3

I'd highly suggest not to listen to a single one of these faggots. Not a single one knows what they are talking about. They are complaining about set by icann regulations like its the company that can control it.

>>58640682
from where, can i still get the same deal?

>>58640559
>most providers block inbound 80 and 443.
In what shitty contry? Under which shitty laws? This is terrible.

>>58639850
>specs should my xeon/server have to
You can easily host a 10k users/day site on a raspberry pi.

>>58640755
https://lowendbox.com/
http://lowendspirit.com/locations.html

Cheap as fuck, but you get what you pay for with most providers.

>>58640828
i'd highly suggest digitalocean/linode/vultr, you'll pay 5 bucks a month and they wont shit out on your and disappear overnight like almost every provider i've ever found on lowendbox

alternately just get shared hosting if you don't know how to configure a web server, you can typically get your first year free.

>>58640784
In lots of them, both US and Europe. It ain't a law, it's the ISP. Pretty much every residential ISP has a "you can't run a server" clause in the TOS. Mostly to force businesses into higher-priced plans, since they generally want to run servers and consumers generally don't. Usually this gets overlooked for small volume stuff like a game server, but web servers are easier to notice, both by their traffic patterns and well-known ports.

Even more common than interference with 80 and 443 is blocking 25. Generally a residential ISP will assume that any mail server on a residential connection is malware sending spam - since statistically almost all are.

>>58640184
>he puts his real info while regging sites
shiggy diggy

>>58640873
It is a clear violation of net neutrality. But I guess the average Joe does not care, and neither does the new FCC chair...
I get why they'd block port 25 though.

>>58640465
OP also asked for server recommendation.

>>58640559
>>58640873
That's sad, although I guess I'm lucky since both I and one of my friends host shit from home, and we have different ISPs.

>>58641548
Every isp provided router i've had so far has built in with dynamic hostname integration on the admin interface with the possibility to set nat rules up. It doesn't seem like most isp are against self hosting

>>58640873
I've lived in both US and Europe, and I've never had an ISP block 80 or 443 incoming.

SMTP and NetBIOS yes, but HTTP/S no.

do you work for giuliani security

>>58639850