That Faltzer Ain't One of Ours

When people reject and dismiss Webs (formerly "Freewebs"), they usually have a good reason to do so. But then again, there's always a group of people who do so for...what reason? I'll go ahead and explain, in an objective point of view why Webs is a good web host. I am not speaking in justification for Site Builder websites, of course. I do harbor dislike for the host as a person who's had free hosting and is now on paid for life, although I don't appreciate people venting over something they usually have no inside knowledge about.

Webs' free hosting package is often aimed at the non-serious demographic.

People don't need more than the basics. You hear everyone else complain about what's not provided there by default (i.e. scripting, FTP, etc.), but here's the real question: Is it really a necessity for you? You want FTP? Try the Webs Bulk Uploader. You want a method of only having to update one file for that change to be reflected upon the entire website? Use SSI. Do you have a legit reason to be using [x] server-side scripting language and need it? Get a better host.

Free web hosting is for the non-serious.

Face it: if you don't run a website that operates dynamically in its entirety, then you most likely have every other page static, and one or two pages with a third-party script running (95% of the time.)

I hear this all of the time: What about my forum? What if I want to let users comment on my "news"? What if I want topsites? The answer is simple: There are external services offered for just about any Open-Source forum and topsite scripts. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the Webs "Blogs" functionality either, as it is adequate for "news" and updates on your website. At the end of the day, all of this unneeded dynamic functionality is best left to external services whenever possible during your free hosting usage.

Webs offers little resources (bandwidth and web space).

40 MB disk space is perfect if all of the files you host are HTML or JavaScript. If you're hosting images, executables and other files, then it is obvious that you are going to run out of space guaranteed. As suggested before, remotely hosted services are around to solve this type of issue

Photobucket comes into mind as well. There is nothing wrong with external services; if your images are being displayed, then that is all that should matter. In the long run, you are saving on resources you could potentially put to waste. On that subject, you are also saving your bandwidth and using it more efficiently as well. Bandwidth is easily drained if one hosts a plethora of images and other files and they are loaded by visitors many times. You don't have anything to lose with resources in this regard.

If you require something more advanced than what it offers, then either free hosting is not for you, or you don't know how to choose a web host correctly because you really do not know what your needs are. It is as likely as this; do your research before hosting with a company. If you require something more advanced and are not ready for paid hosting ($5/m is not expensive), try X10 Hosting.