Drazen,

I don't think you understand the economics of this situation.

The VFP Web market is tiny compared to the Web hosting market as a whole. You can host an ASP.NET site with SQL Server access for as low as $10 a month (although that won't get you far - it'll be likely around $30 before you are done at the ned of a month). This low pricing reflects a large market. PHP, Perl etc. hosting is even cheaper because it's more light-weigth (translate: more sites per server).

There are several reasons for that:

* Scale
There are a literally millions of domains who use these platforms

* Administration
It's easy to administer these platforms. VFP cannot run on most of these platforms without major configuration and potential security issues.


I find it laughable when somebody calls $49 (which I think both DNS and Ideate charge for shared VFP sites) "extremely expensive, overpriced" given that if you have an application that is making money that this is not a lot of money. It may be expensive for some foreign currency conversions, but in terms of US pricing $49/month is not what I would consider expensive for any business that's hosting an application that provides any sort of business value.

Sure it's maybe twice as expensive as what you could get with a generic hoster IF THEY WOULD ALLOW YOU TO RUN VFP (unlikely!).

That's why I said - co-location gives you the best option, even though it's more expensive up front. With co-location you can host multiple sites on your own server which defrays the cost significantly. I pay about $100 a month for a co-located box (with a non-VFP hoster) and I run about 50 different domains with dynamic applications on that server, so it costs me roughly $2 per domain.


Unfortunately the reality is VFP is a tiny fraction of hte market, most ISPs have no idea what it is, much less any idea how to install, configure or administer it, or what the security implications of running COM objects on a server are. This is why a generic ISP that's conscientious will not even touch VFP hosting <s>...

OVer the years there were a few more VFP based hosting services out there but they have faded away. I'm sure it wasn't because they were overrun with business of $2/month Web hosting requests. <s>

+++ Rick ---





>>...I can recommend both of these services as they are run by FoxPro >knowledgable folks ...
>> ... Co-location can often be had between $100-150/month plus hardware which >isn't much if you have an application that's making money
>
>- - - -
>
>Rick,
>
>Speaking gennerally, VFP webhosting is the biggest problem for VFP web-community. There are only few (!) commercial VFP webhostings, extremely expensive, overpriced. And this situation is even worse when You add VFP-web-tools licensing-policies.
>
>My suggestion is: You and other VFP web-tools makers urgently need to resolve this situation, lounching cheap and reliable VFP shared webservers.
>
>Otherwise, all VFP desktop developers will go to the new webworld of MS or PHP or ...
>
>Regards,
>Drazen Z.