Site44 turns Dropbox folders into websites
site44.com
site44.com
I'm not known on the Internet at all. I have perhaps 30 friends in Facebook. I had a Wordpress blog and grabbed an image I had sitting in DropBox and used it's public URL. I posted a link on Facebook. Within an hour Dropbox had detected "unusual" activity and disabled the image.
Further, I've tried sharing a 700MB movie ( personal project I self edited ) to a small group of friends. I sent an email to 5 people, so there were 5 or less downloads. The movie was disabled for too much bandwidth use.
I do only have the free Dropbox account, and in the past have linked to a small jpg and posted that to a mailing list for css so it was probably hit thousands of times and that was allowed to stay.
I'm not sure what their internal system is set for as to rules for xfer amounts and number of hits, but in my experience, it's pretty low.
A novel idea, though I would think anyone who knows how to make an HTML site is already locally previewing it, so they would already know how to put it in their public folder. Having a custom domain name point to it is nice. Is site44 proxying the requests? Most isp's don't like this sort of thing either. Any significant traffic outbound on 80 might set off some bells.
I do think it's good to try. The more that use it the more it may send a message to our isp's to stop having so many silly rules. And maybe DropBox will lighten up on theirs.
Is the OP link served from DropBox? I'll bet it isn't.
We've been running for about six months now and have thousands of users, and Dropbox has helped us with our API use since the beginning. Yes, the OP (www.site44.com) is hosted on Site44.
Here's a guest post on the Dropbox developer blog about how we use their API: https://www.dropbox.com/developers/blog/23
Perhaps your confusion is that you assume we're using Dropbox public folders or that Dropbox is hosting the content in some way. This isn't true. (We're serving all the content ourselves and only need to talk to Dropbox to get files that change.)
Great idea and good luck.
Be careful when testing performance... browser refreshes trigger us going back to Dropbox to look for changes to files, so they're considerably slower than just navigating around a site (where we typically serve pages from an in-memory cache).
EDIT: Forgot to mention I'm one of the founders of Planet Rational (the company that made this).
I may not have explained properly. What happens is that when we get a request that looks like a refresh, we ask Dropbox for updates before we fulfill the request. So it's only that specific request that is slowed down.
visubr.site44.com
Congrats again on shipping a kick-ass product.
-webkit-text-size-adjust: none;
This CSS rule in that site is the worst kind of CSS rule; one that disables basic browser functionality.A friend of mine talked to Drew Houston about the idea at a conference and Housten loved it!
1124 people have signed up for KISSr but I have yet to get anyone to pay for it.
I have since lost interest in the project.
I still think it is a great idea and I am glad someone is running with it!
If you're actually interested in making this happen I'd recommend you reach out to him privately and at least provide an incentive for him to help you out.
Hosting has become a commodity - but you can sell ease of use - especially if publishing a website is a dropbox drag'n drop away.
EDIT: Didn't realise the free option only allows 100MB/month. Turns out this is kind of useless for me :(
Actually, I think I'll be using it too for shenglong.ca where I keep a bunch of static content. Lots of people have domains, but don't really pay for any servers during project down times (blasphemy, I know!)
I'm not trying to obtuse but I'm having a hard time seeing the value proposition of something like this.
Perhaps that's not the use case that's intended here?
We have also released our technology as an API at http://mover.io
Feedback is welcome!
Here's a list of static website generators:
http://iwantmyname.com/blog/2011/02/list-static-website-gene...
My personal site is just a couple html files.
Let's take a blog, for instance. What you effectively do is pre-render all your blog posts into ready-to-be-served HTML. When you visit a Wordpress site, PHP takes over and custom builds the response for the request. EVERY request that isn't being cached effectively.
Now there are tradeoffs. You won't be able to have some user/visitor specific data like user profile. You have to get crafty with what else you take for granted that is exposed through server-side languages and database persistence. You have to push functionality out to the front-end if you wish to have a rich content site.
What are the benefits? Substantially less server load as this is just serving static assets (HTML, JS, CSS, images). Lessened security concerns ( absence of SQL injection, Cross-site scripting attack vector from untrusted user content is removed). Highly cacheable content. Less 'moving parts' to worry about which could break in production.
Your site can still be managed by PHP, Ruby, Python, etc and have a database backing it, but it is not accessible from the Internet by visitors. A static site solves a defined set of problems, but it is definitely not a hammer.
You can still turn it on in Dropbox if you don't have it.