Index ⇒ Site Suggestions ⇒ Please allow file attachments...

[3dslUserLoad]

I don't want to demand much, but you should allow small file and picture attachments, maybe 256Kb max. Thank you.

[dead-meat]

I don't really see a reason to allow attachments. They'll only waste space and cause a lot of traffic for the host. Keeping up 1000 attachments with the suggested size wastes a lot of disk space and bandwitch for a site that does not display any advertisments and alike.

//EDIT:
Plus there are a lot of sites to upload pictures on, like imageshack was before. And you can always try some rapidshare/megaupload/whatever to quickly upload small files.

[3dslUserLoad]

I am really regretting this.
Unfortunatly I don't know on what hardware you manage this forum, but I don't want to believe that memory-wasting could be a reason to disallow attachments.
For example, recently I bought an external hard-drive of 750GigaByte(!!!) for less than 80 EUROs.
Even if I wanted to store all actual games, movies, TV-shows or whatever on it - I am not able to fill all this space!
Therefore I can't accept your statement.

Please loose your mind and give us users some scope.

Thank you for your consideration.

[loki1985]

I am really regretting this.
Unfortunatly I don't know on what hardware you manage this forum, but I don't want to believe that memory-wasting could be a reason to disallow attachments.
For example, recently I bought an external hard-drive of 750GigaByte(!!!) for less than 80 EUROs.
Even if I wanted to store all actual games, movies, TV-shows or whatever on it - I am not able to fill all this space!
Therefore I can't accept your statement.

Please loose your mind and give us users some scope.

Thank you for your consideration.

sure, if you are able to plug that harddrive to our server (which is somewhere on this planet (probably), and might change positions anytime), that could work. really man, you cannot compare prices for HDDs to webhosting services and/or prices. for example, webhosting (also storage) is always rented, not bought (at least in this kind of hosting)

[Lifeforce]

From what i know about web stuff, its not the webspace that causes costs its the traffic.Actually aren't file hosts doing a better job here ?

For pictures these services work okay:
http://www.picpaste.de
http://picpaste.com
http://pictransfer.de
http://img430.imageshack.us
http://i127.photobucket.com
http://www.directupload.net
http://www.picscrazy.com
http://picfront.de/index.php?language=en

greets

[loki1985]

From what i know about web stuff, its not the webspace that causes costs its the traffic.

from my experience that was years ago, but nowadays traffic is getting cheaper and cheaper. but average hosting usualy has very limited HD space, and extension cost pretty much....

[dead-meat]

Well.. it sure is the traffic that's expensive but safe webspace is not that cheap either. Like I told you.. there are no ads and stuff on LW and it's up like 99% of the time. I don't really see a reason someone should spend more money on something that's absolutely not needed. There are so many hosts (see Lifeforce's post i.e.) for files and/or pictures.

Also loki is totally right with what he says: your external drive is a lot different from the ones used for webhosting. You need disks that will be able to run 24/7 all year long. Believe me, cheap disks will not. And then again you need a couple of disks to build a RAID (see wiki if needed) which will keep your data safe. Plus the disks are usually faster (10k-15k rpm compared to your 7.5rpm) another feature you'll have to pay some extra money for. Then you'll need to pay that coffee addicted guy that maintains the hardware and stuff at the hosting provider.

Last but not least you'll need some extra energy. Some external drive needs some energy from time to time, only when you use it. The servers - again - are running 24/7 all year long. Even if that's only 20 bucks a year it still is money.

Note: I tried picking arguments that'd bother you at home, too

[freakboy]

Please do not allow file attachements. This feature is useless.

[3dslUserLoad]

OK, then I am forced to MIME64 you again in the future, unfortunatly.

[hfric]