Some of you are saying: “If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. Shut up. Stop complaining.” I think the most useful aspect of threads such as this is that they discuss exactly what it is that is bad (and good) about Dreamhost, and what the alternatives are depending on which of Dreamhost’s shortcomings it is that is affecting us.

Super Jamie, you lay out two possibilities and remind us there are no free lunches. Still, there may be more than two types of lunches in existence? And this thread is about where we can find a good deal on lunch. Surely that might exist?

I agree wholeheartedly with you that their rules are ridiculous, disappointing, unrealistic and that their sales structure is possibly advantageous and even immoral – however – YOU are the one who agreed to them when you purchased your web hosting. If you didn’t like them, you should never have purchased the hosting to start with.

Personal preferences aside, I have previously sat on the other end of this agreement, clients wishing to use one of my company’s products for that which it CAN be used, but SHOULDN’T be used, or is not ALLOWED to be used, based on our terms of service. Often for illegal purposes. And I’m the one who has to say “No”, and the customer legally must agree, or have their service cancelled, as they agreed to it when they entered into the service contract.

I do not enter into “truck” or “book” or any other analogies in regards to technology, as they are almost always inaccurate in regards to the nature of product they represent. The fact is: you did not purchase a personal online backup service, you purchased website hosting, for specific use of serving webpages to the general public, and nothing more.

If you wish to use a remote internet-connected file storage service for personal file storage, either get a free shell account with data storage (and likely a terrible transfer speed), or pay for a collocated server (at an inflated cost to your web-only hosting), like everyone else does. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Also, as a company, you can not just refuse to give a service and say that the customer has the right to go elsewhere. If you offer 1$ books, then charge 2$ for them, the customer can ask to be charged 1$ and be given the book. You can not just tell him to accept or go away. And having a ToS that says “All our 1$ books will be charged 2$” does not make it any more legal.

I don’t know about the legality of the ToS of DH. I assume it is perfectly correct (but it would not be the first one ever to be declared abusive). However, it doesn’t make it any more moral, you must agree. They allot you some resources under the agreement that you will use them in a way that will almost surely not let you take full advantage of them, then prevent you from using them in another (perfectly legal) way that would be well within the scope of the resources. If you don’t find it outrageous, then I don’t know what is so for you.

I will abide by their rules, but this is the kind of thing that makes me unhappy. Another thing that makes me unhappy is how we, the customers, bow to the companies and accept any shit from them, convincing ourselves that it is “correct” because a ToS says so.

I think the problem was that I had two conflicting plugins for OpenID: Alternate OpenID for WordPress 0.4 by Jerry Yeager and WP-OpenID 2.1.9 by Alan Castonguay and Will Norris.

I deactivated the former, and kept the latter (WP-OpenID). Now it seems to work.

However you have to agree that the distinction is irrelevant. If I have 5GB of pictures and I put them online to share them, then it’s correct. If I place them in just another folder of the same computer (in my account) and don’t share them, then it’s a backup, and I have to pay a separate bill for that. That’s ridiculous, not matter how you put it. I am using up some resources, be it a backup or a web content.

I also agree that the DH service is good, and that the prices are great. I am a happy customer in general. Actually, I signed up to be billed for the “non-web” content, as they tell me to in the e-mail. I am just angry at the reasons behind, being it cheap or expensive.

Imagine that I have an online storage service that lets people upload videos… but only if David Bisbal appears on them. If David Bustamante appears, then they ban you. If the ToS says that, then it is fair? Maybe legally, but not morally. You should pay for some space for your videos, and they shouldn’t mess in what the videos contain (assuming a legal content).

BTW, I will take a look at the OpenID issue… when I have time.