Looking for a new hosting service for my images

Me | October 8, 2023 | My bad self

[BipolarBob]

If the file you copy from a source already has malware,

That's assuming the image has malware attached. The SSl may be out of date or some certification issue and somebody saw a "not secure" warning and freaked out.

[No.6]

A cloud storage account is so inexpensive you could have two for redundancy. For reference,

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/storage/blobs/?ef_id=_k_8eeadee051261b612899bbc311dc82fc_k_&OCID=AIDcmm5edswduu_SEM__k_8eeadee051261b612899bbc311dc82fc_k_&msclkid=8eeadee051261b612899bbc311dc82fc

‘hot’ means something you’re linking so pages can go reference it; ‘cool’ is archival. So $0.018 per GB monthly and it’s not many more clicks to set up than one of the usual dropbox/onedrive or image-whatever places. (I presume Amazon and google are similar; just grabbed the first one for pricing)

No guarantees that one of these might some day pull ‘misinformation’ or whatever out of their hat but less likely than one of those name storage services.

[No.6]

^ nonetheless, I trust other people with my data hardly if at all, so I have physical archives in case of oops or whatever.

[dayglored]

This solution depends on you being moderately familiar with Linux servers, but it works perfectly for me.

• Sign up for a free Amazon AWS account
• Launch a "t3.nano" instance of Ubuntu 22 Linux, login (SSH)
• Install the Apache webserver, set up a simple HTTP/HTTPS site with a free Let'sEncrypt certificate via the certbot service
• Upload your images (SCP) into a directory path that matches your current one
• Maintain as needed (very little required)

Cost is instance+disk. The t3.nano instance is about half a penny per hour, which is about 4 bucks a month. Disk storage is about a dime per GB-month, so 5GB of storage for images on top of say 8GB for the system comes to another two bucks or so a month. There's a trivial network charge depending on how much people access (download) your images, but it's usually negligible.

Again, this approach requires some technical familiarity with Linux. Details on request.

[Openurmind]

Well done! That is the way to do it! :)

Linux users have to remember to try and check stuff going through as a courtesy, if they care. Malware made for windows will not bother our Linux, but it can hit any windows users we forward the file to.

I try to stay on top of that, especially when sending a downloaded file to anyone with a local native email client. But I try to only source from trusted sources.

But using “Save image as” is the best way when possible. It just saves a copy of the “rendering” not the actual file. Although the quality is not as good, I also use my “select area” in screenshot to capture the rendering.

[Openurmind]

“That’s assuming the image has malware attached. The SSl may be out of date or some certification issue and somebody saw a “not secure” warning and freaked out.”

Yep, absolutely true. FireFox is really bad about giving false alerts like this when there is really nothing to worry about. But you have to be smarter than FireFox. :)

[MomwithHope]

Yes as far as I know you would need to be logged into postimages.

[Tunehead54]

Thanks - I managed to capture an on-line image and send it to the desired directory in postimage without saving to disk - Working on it - Again, Thanks!

TH54

[Tunehead54]

Voila' ;-)

[Delta 21]

Imjur