For static pages you can use aws s3. That is what I use for my website. The cost for my two maybe less than 1$ per year. On May 26, 2016 3:46 PM, "Simon Westlake" <simon@sonar.software> wrote:
They're not gonna offer anything different in that regard, you'd still have to manage the server (which it sounds like Lewis doesn't want to do.) On 5/26/2016 2:35 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: You're not going to hustle for DigitalOcean? :) On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Simon Westlake <simon@sonar.software> <simon@sonar.software> wrote: AWS is way overkill if you just want something you can FTP a static site up to. All you really need is a cheap webhosting provider. I haven't used one in a very long time, but something likehttps://www.namecheap.com/hosting.aspx is probably fine.. I use Namecheap for all my SSL/domain hosting, and they've been good. On 5/26/2016 2:27 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote: Not to get to close to what some of you still do for a living....but I need a web host and I was thinking AWS. I don't know why I was thinking AWS but I was. I am setting up a static 6 page site and just need something simple I can ftp a site up to. I know Paul i the resident AWS guru but I was wondering if there are opinions on the best way to go for this. I know how to run a Linux server, Apache, etc. etc. I just don't want to anymore...sue me. This is a stupid question but does anyone have an opinion you can back up with some logical reasoning. -- Simon Westlake Skype: Simon_Sonar Email: simon@sonar.software Phone: (702) 447-1247 --------------------------- Sonar Software Inc The next generation of ISP billing and OSShttps://sonar.software -- Simon Westlake Skype: Simon_Sonar Email: simon@sonar.software Phone: (702) 447-1247 --------------------------- Sonar Software Inc The next generation of ISP billing and OSShttps://sonar.software
