Talk:DreamHost

Inner Workings of the Company

As a former employee, I am very well-versed in the inner workings of DreamHost. We were-and still are, I imagine-almost literally rolling in the cash, which is why they're able to sell so much for so cheap. We bought shit like arcade machines, tons of food, big screen televisions, etc. Also about half the staff dropped acid at random intervals throughout the day. Just thought you guys would like to know what goes in behind the scenes! (anonymous posting from User:68.254.181.82 moved from main article)

that was crude, entirely unneccessary, and where can i apply for a job?

i too would like the job application form, hello pacman!

While it's true that the company is doing well, I haven't seen any acid or any other drugs around the office. Arcade machine confirmed, however. You gotta break up the monotony! -- 66.92.39.177 01:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (edit by myself: 66.92.39.177 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Biased Article

I think the promotions section isn't very good. First off, every hosting company that has a referral program has spammers and dissatisfied customers. Specifically mentioning it on the DreamHost page and not on other pages for web hosts is unfair. If you look at the Godaddy page, you'll find nothing about spammers or dissatisfied customers. Also, there are things under Promotions that have nothing to do with promotions.

In addition, why bother mentioning the control panel? Every webhost has a control panel! The points made are someone's opinion and don't relate to Dreamhost as a subject.

I think the first two paragraphs before Promotions along with a few things from the sections below it are more than enough for a good, fair article about Dreamhost. -- Sleepy Sentry

I totally agree with Sleepy Sentry's assessment about promotions. I think there is evidence that disgruntled and former customers are shaping the article more than they should be. In the matter of the Control Panel, I do feel its uniqueness is worth mentioning. I think it stands head and shoulders above cPanel, and its uniqueness makes it less of a security vulnerability too. Note to Sleepy Sentry: Please sign your comments with four tilde characters (~~~~) -- Scjessey 15:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting information re: control panel: Ours is a one of a kind, developed in-house and improved over the course of the 7 years we've been in business. Some people love it, a few don't, but the fact that we don't use the everyday cPanel or similar is noteworthy to anyone who wants to know more about DreamHost. -- 66.92.39.177 19:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

non-censorship policy

I added the following which was subsequently reverted:

__________________

For instance, DreamHost hosts a websight called "redwatch" which publishes names, addresses, photos and other personal data of human rights activists in order to encourage violent attacks against them. According to Indymedia.org, on May 16 2006, an antifascist activist was followed, attacked and nearly killed in Warsaw after his personal data appeared on this sight.

Consequently, a post on the DreamHost forum, from "the main person who handles these sorts of issues", states:

"... we have a long and cooperative relationship with law enforcement. Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site we investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted. The nature of such investigations is such that we are often unable to comment on their status or provide details on what is going on behind the scenes.

As for this case in particular, I can only say this: We're aware of the site, and of the concerns and facts surrounding the recent incidents in Poland. If any of you can provide us with additional information that could be of use, please don't hesitate to let us know. Beyond that, though, I'm afraid that we cannot comment on this matter any further."

__________________

The reason given is "Revert, the specific sites DreamHost hosts (as mentioned before, over 260,000 domains) are not subject for this article".

So, which article is the relevant place for this information ? Surely there should be a link to the relevant place ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heysan (talk • contribs) .

Apologies. I'd meant to note that it might fit better in the Redwatch article. Of course, others there may disagree — I can't say for sure. jareha ^(comments) 18:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The information is better suited to the Redwatch article, although I'd argue it is ludicrous to single-out DreamHost for specific mention. There are thousands of web hosts, many more popular and well-known, that host material that is similar to this. -- Scjessey 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean to single out DreamHost as a particular offender. But I think it is better if there is some mention of the fact that a non-cencorship policy of this sort has possibly directly facilitated a violent crime.--Heysan 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and also I think your argument makes no sense at all. Should the Wikipedia mention that AT&T/Verizon/Cingular/whatever have possibly directly facilitated a violent crime because the alleged perpetrators have used telephones to communicate with each other? What about GM/Ford/Chrysler/VW/whatever for building the vehicles that allow perpetrators to travel to the locations where the crimes are committed? What about the internet service providers? Should they be mentioned because they failed to block access to the website in question? In all seriousness, the involvement (if it can even be called that) of DreamHost in the activities of Redwatch is completely irrelevant, and not worthy of mention in this (or any) Wikipedia article. -- Scjessey 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. A pen can be a tool to write with; it can also be used to jab someone in the eye. Does that, therefore, mean we should discuss the pitfalls of pen manufacturing on the BIC Corp. article? jareha ^(comments) 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the content because it is more pertinent to the debate of freedom of speech on the internet than it is to DreamHost. jareha ^(comments) 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your examples of the pens, vehicles, and telephones are not comparable to the current situation. The fact is that DreamHost itself will block an illegal site -- infact, as I quoted before, they will, "Upon receiving complaints regarding the legality of a given site ... investigate it internally, calling upon law enforcement in situations where we feel that it is warranted", a responsible position to be sure; while pen, vehicle and telephone manufacturers do not nead to take such a position. Why is that ? I think it is because, unlike your examples, DreamHost is in a position where the legality of the sites it hosts might come into question.

For the sake of this argument, lets assume that DreamHost is advised to block the site because it violates their own policy prohibiting illegal sites. Then is it worth pointing out that in the interim, they hosted a site which facilitated a violent crime ? Now, from your comments, I assume you find the phrase 'facilitated a violent crime' too broad to be reasonably applied, but my point is that why else is DreamHost legally obliged to remove the content ? That is, to test whether a party 'facilitated a violent crime', or (the clunkier) 'possibly directly facilitated a violent crime' seems simple: are they legally obliged to take responsibility for their action (of hosting the site)? If they are legally obliged, then I would say that they did, in this case, facilitate a violent crime.

I have a related query: the article previously stated that "There is, for example, no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." I changed this to "For instance, they do not allow the hosting of child pornography or death threats. On the other hand, for example, there is no barrier to "adult" sites, or sites that state extremist views." Why was this reverted ? At least there should be a link, under the heading non-cencorship policy, to an article discussing the meaning, consequences, and debate of such a policy.--Heysan 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the protocol at his point ? Do I add to the article my suggested link, or wait for some sort of consensus from those involved in this discussion ? --Heysan 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is already a consensus that your proposed additions are inappropriate. In fact, I think the "Non-Censorship Policy" section should be removed as well. -- Scjessey 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what we have now is a fair compromise, Scjessey — no need to remove the "non-censorship policy" section. jareha ^(comments) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did expect a response to my last comments -- its a bit disingenuous to stop a discussion midway. --Heysan 17:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't responded because I'm sure neither of us will budge on our opinions. I've said my piece, you've said yours. I disagree with your opinion, but you're free to hold it.

Also, I didn't notice you'd requested to add a link. How about linking censorship? jareha ^(comments) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about freedom of speech on the internet as someone suggested earlier ?--Heysan 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggested that link earlier. Works for me. jareha ^(comments) 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about shell access

Does Dreamhost really allow full shell access, meaning that I can run PHP and other scripts directly from the command-line? How does Dreamhost do with MediaWiki 1.9 setups? The yearly price of about $190 for tons of storage, bandwidth, PLUS full shell access seems too good to be true. If this is for real, then its an incredible deal because just about every webhost refuses to allow shell access on shared servers. Malakaville 07:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do have full shell access. They do reserve the right to disallow CPU-intensive processes if they impair the performance of the server. *Dan T.* 12:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The shell plus the space plus the loads of databases keeps me with them despite reliability problems. Don't expect 100% uptime and you won't be dissatisfied. --38.100.222.81 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding external links

Added [http://dhstatus.com unofficial dreamhost status] site to Dreamhost page, but it was removed... who decides what goes on the dreamhost page? is that site just not cool/useful enough or what? thx, 70.56.68.135 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

External links must follow Wikipedia guidelines, and such decisions are made by the Wikipedia community, or (if necessary) by Wikipedia administrators. The site in question did not add significant value to the article, and appeared to be designed mostly for the owner's personal enrichment (AdSense everywhere). -- Scjessey 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

I don't know if it's just me, but this article sounds pretty advert-ish to me, only stating that "DreamHost does this, DreamHost does that", without any criticism, and no real sources — the only "sources" (besides the statistics) are DreamHost's own public announcements which are naturally not reliable sources.

Back when I left DreamHost, there was a lot of grumbling about their excessive overselling, although I don't think any published research has actually touched this topic. I will admit leaving DreamHost partly due to their reliability and other problems, so I will not be bold in doing this. But would anyone mind if the fluff was removed and the article stubbified? -- intgr 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)