I use GitHub. I'm a developer, so maybe this is hard... They let you use their website to create a repo, add a file, and then in the settings specify that master is the source branch for GhPages so that it's available via the browser to the world at yourname.github.io/yourproject. You can even add a custom ___domain if you want.
Check the box to Initialize this repository with a README
Click the Create repository button
Click the Create new file button
Name the file index.html
Enter <p>Hello World</p> in the body of the file
Click the Commit new file button
Click the Settings gear icon
Scroll down to GitHub Pages
Select master branch under Source
Click the Save button
There's now a link to username.github.io/hello under the GitHub Pages heading. You can now edit the index.html file or add css and js resources in the same way you just added the index file. Uploading files, such as images, is also supported. All without using Git.
is github pages limited to jekyll? Or can you host any kind of html page? I thought about it as well but it adds a lot of complexity. Git is not easy to learn.
Oh wait, you're saying that you can do everything without using Git? That sounds good then.
You can host any kind of HTML. Jekyll is just there so you can check in Markdown and config and GitHub will generate the HTML for you whenever you commit. But it doesn't have to work that way. Plenty of static site generators also support GitHub Pages as a hosting method.
The Archive's philosophy is that they welcome any and all content. If you want your content to be on the internet, available for everyone to see and for the future to find, then by all means use the archive. Far more apt than a dropbox folder imho.
S3 buckets with the website feature enabled, but you have to pay for usage and I don't know of a way to emulate Dropbox's local filesystem integration with S3... at least not one that's accessible for nontechnical users.
That's kinda the problem - why _should_ this be free?
If it matters at all to you, you can host a huge amount for static website content for single digit dollars per year on S3.
If it's not worth that much to you, who in their right mind will build a service based on providing that to you at your price point? And if they _have_ a service where the marginal cost of you not-caring-enough-to-pay makes little difference, you should - as this Dropbox change demonstrates - fully expect that "feature" to go away when the costs or support (or legal problems) get noticed.
It's not that it should be free. It's just that it used to be.
Unfortunately, I don't think that "if it matters so much to you, you can pay $X" is a useful position. More helpful would be "beware free services that cause vendor lock-in and may stop being free at any time".
Do you use a free Gmail account? If so, how important is it for you?
and not only did it used to be free,
but when they took it away,
they refused to give people an option to pay for it.
they really botched an opportunity to get people to upgrade.
further, they hurt their integrity in the process,
and their integrity is one of their most important assets.
so, overall, it was a tremendously bad mistake.
it's also puzzling they never gave any credible explanation for it. in the meantime, there are at least two alternatives, namely htmldrop.com and updog.co; both are new, and thus who knows how long they will last, but if you need something now, you have options.
So just like Google Wave/Buzz/Knol/Answers/every-other-20%-time-project-that-wasn't-email-maps-or-ads?
I'm with you on the outrage, just perhaps a bit more pragmatic about the inevitability. (And I'm a paying customer too. Or at least will be until my current billing cycle ends...)
i'm not outraged. i'm not even affected by it, except in the most tangential way. i would describe myself as "perplexed". by the change itself (although maybe it's to protect themselves against black-hat hackers, for some reason they've opted not to explain), but even more so by the oafish way they enacted it. (although, as some consolation, they did give plenty of warning to [most] users.)
Because I'm trying to teach someone how to make a simple webpage and publish it on the internet. If in this workflow you have to get your credit card out you're doing it wrong.
Having said that, I haven't had that public folder in many many many many many years. So I'm surprised about this announce.
If anyone knows a quick way to let anyone do what I described above, please do tell.