I asked this question for a solution on content storage similar to Amazon S3. I think it would be safe to say there is a difference in a hosting solution compared to content sharing? That being said I still don't understand why it was closed as a duplicate to this. I was needing a solution like Amazon S3, but I cant go with Amazon S3 because my client boycotts Amazon. I'm not asking for a debate on whose hosting is better. My issue involves a way to serve digital content for download or checkout securely, other than Amazon.
-
client is looking for something to add to their existing site because they already have a shared hosting. I tried to sell them on Amazon S3 for their content but they didnt want Amazon and I have never used or seen anyone other than Amazon.– DᴀʀᴛʜVᴀᴅᴇʀMar 11, 2013 at 14:28
-
Rackspace is a company you should consider, excellent Fanatic support which is 24/7, I'm with Rackspace and your never go else where once you try them... Their support is what makes them the best in my honest opinion. Ask your client about Rackspace, There rates are very competitive.– Simon HayterMar 11, 2013 at 14:33
-
Well I action use Rackspace, and Amazon... But Rackspace is hands down better, the only reason I use amazon is that I wanted a server in Ireland, other than that... I have no reason to be with them.– Simon HayterMar 11, 2013 at 14:35
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I was needing a solution like Amazon S3, but I cant go with Amazon S3 because my client boycotts Amazon.
You're looking for hosting meeting a certain set of requirements, and "not Amazon" is one of those requirements. You're not really explaining how your question isn't a dupe other than say so. This isn't "content sharing," it's still hosting, just not of web pages.
(Note I'm not saying your case has already been covered in the dupe question, just that it's where a response belongs.)
