New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
No minimum requirment, just having information. I'm not against one man shows, I'm pro-choice pro-infomation pro-transparency pro-risk awareness.
@INIZ - you need to take turns when you leave your terminal with your friend
make sure you use a different route when going home to him
make sure you're not in the same car/same place at the same time.
I think at that point its not the fact that it was a one-man or two-man show .. Its the fact that they upset a few too many of the wrong people..
What if a company demanded questions about you, like a credit check or background check?
This won't be deleted. I'm a man of my word @asterisk14. I told you if you leave the business-harming shit-lists out, it could be a very interesting discussion :-)
Not sure why a LEB VPS would do a credit check on me if I paid 1 year in advance. I think it would make more sense if I credit checked them in that scenario :-)
I personally think it has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It's unlikely I'd trust one-man operations with my data if they haven't already proved themselves. Obviously if everybody thought like this then there wouldn't be any one-man-shows in the first place, as nobody would give them the time of the day, however that's not the case and some people are more trusting than myself.
If a company is credible then I see no reason to trust them, regardless of how many people are behind them. If they mess up, leave. Simple as that.
Some of the very best services I've received have been with companies ran by a single individual, and as has been previously mentioned in this thread, you often see a more "personal" touch, and can more visibly see the hard work that is being put in to providing a great service.
My 2 cents.
My point is that it's difficult to check out if it is a one man show unless you hang around on these forums and we need providers on here to be more forthcoming with this info. Obviously hosts don't want this info in the public which is a shame. I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot, and they invested some money or time and it went pair shaped and they did not have the full info, they would be the first to complain.
If there's any reason for this thread to be deleted, it's that I had to really work my eyes to see that there was a post above the signature. At first I thought it was just more crap political misdirection.
But that's just one of potential factors and as such it doesn't mean by default that bad things will happen. Let me give you another one. Gear. Leased vs owned. Would you raise your hands from your company easily if you would invest 20.000$ or more into it? Or do you think now that we need also list of hosts which doesn't own gear? And then to expand it more? List of hosts who doesn't have own ASN? And list who those who doesn't have own IP space? And list of those who don't operate from office?
Of course hosts don't want to be on such list which would damage their business, in many case unjustified and maybe just maybe contributed to early ending of their career despite of all hard work invested. I am all for discussion about this but I am strictly against every such list with bad connotation to hurt someone business.
I would ideally like to see the following info:-
One man show/many man show (with access to nodes)?
Owned or rented equipment?
Kiddie host or mature host?
Registered company/individual or unregistered?
Pay their VAT/income tax or not paying tax - is the HMRC going to seize their servers?
@asterisk14 nothing can beat a honest review about hosts from first hand experience. This is imho. the proper way to go.
Like you said in the other thread, you have sold Un-CatalystHost and now you are free to pursue your trolling career fulltime!
@asterisk14 u mad? You need some love?
You're missing quite a lot of things. What about how many people that have access to switches/routers/racks/whatever else?
What about access to website? Access to billing?
I only see access to nodes mentioned.
In a "larger" company, maybe 1 person looks after billing, 1 person looks after servers, 1 person looks after networks, etc etc... what of that?
I got ******* recently, so I started looking into VPSes to pass the time.
I thought nodes would be the important aspect in case they went down. Billing should be automated and website control is not critical, other people may have access to those like monkeys handling the tickets.
@asterisk14 - no. If the network was down, does it matter if the node's up? You wouldn't be able to connect to it either.
Yes, billing is automatic - what if you had a billing problem and your VPS got suspended automatically? No one is around to fix it. Does it matter if the node is up?
What if the website is down and you can't raise a support ticket? Does it matter if the node is up and you need help? The monkeys can't bring the website up.
Then I guess it is even more critical that there be 2 or people with access to all the systems. With the one man shows, only one person probably has access to 70% and they may employ 1-2 doing the tickets etc. So if something happens to the one man = vps down may ---> deadpool.
That's exactly it. You always need a backup and/or at least 2 people in charge of things. This is why you see workers going onsite have 2+ people. Usually it's 3. 1 person doing the work, 1 as backup and 1 as a backup backup in case 1 gets "hit by the bus" so there's still 2.
This is why large companies hire multiple people even if they don't need it - backup purposes. If 1 person is sick there is still a replacement.
Either way, what you propose just increases costs. Good luck having multiple people in all departments also covering 24/7 and having 2GB+/$7 VPS without other compromises elsewhere.
So your the show meant how many people have access to entire their service, or their bank account?
I agree it would be better if there were more verified information about who own the service than whois. Two or more have ownership exponentially decrease the risk, is why companies have executive officers and hold stocks separately.
Though, I don't mind how many people on their support or beside their servers. Sometimes skilled one can operate nearly everything than the others do. Of course there should be skillful backups alike some large companies do, as concerto49 said, but sadly such technically key persons are considered to be spareable in most cases...
Then you are fair to put your money where your mouth is by supporting companies that give you information you want.
Hola, I am a little bit confused about where you get your facts. As Catalyst has never been sold. Might want to get your facts straight before you start spreading rumors.
It is true that Jarland is no longer a representative of Catalyst. However that does not mean the company was every sold.
Daniel does not find substance in facts.
I'm not proposing have 3 people in all depts, just that we are aware of the set up, so we got an idea of the 'risk' involved. Just like when you buy a car you look and compare the EuroNCAP rating with other cars in that class to give an extreme example. I would gladly buy from one man shows, I would just not put my critical stuff on it, or if I did I would have backups. For example I am actually using VirtualVM for my voip server which is pretty critical with 2 extensions, 1 is remote and we rely on voip 100% at my house. I got this server for free and I have no idea how long it will last and/or no SLA I guess either. I am WILLING to take the risk and use it for this critical thing because I know the risk, have minimised them (by having a backup on DigitalOcean) and I know what the deal is with the host. I use Host1Free in a similar way.
From what you descibe, In most cases it would be fine even if 2 people were running the company but had a knowledge of all the systems and could cope in the short term if one of them was MIA for whatever reason. Whatever the set up is, we should have the information about what their contingency plans are and whether 1 or more people have access.
This is something that Jarland said/implied/whatever. Couldn't give a half of the left cheek of a skinny rats arse what the deal is with CataclysmicHost, you or Jarland TBH.
No, the way you bring it is childish. "Should we be more open" is something a provider should be asking.
If you weren't selectively reading my post you would see I said the following:
You can't force them to be transparent, so you better find one that already is.
I thought we were talking about one man providers... Anyway, this paramid servers guy was like 26 or so and deadpooled, 2 quite known guys around here have been running a stable host while being <=16
No, I did not say lieing. I said not completely honest, as in being vague.
Yea, because civil lawsuits are free, right?
No. It says more about you than the kid running it if you run something worth a civil lawsuit on a host ran by a 14 year old.
He is 16 and his mom doesn't even front him
FTFY
This isn't a fucking game. You're discriminating providers who have a solid track record for a silly reason (@serverian and @INIZ come to mind), you might toy with your $7, but they make a living out of it. This industry isn't different from any else, just because it has to be $7 doesn't mean it can't make massive profits. (it's simply part of a bigger cause)
This is real life, yes, there will always be scammers or incompetent people, always! But you don't need to point fingers to perfectly fine providers with your insane getting-hit-by-bus theory
Yes, I'm sure providers especially one man shows are going to be asking this. You can tell how interested they are in discussing it by the number of one man show providers that have commented in this thead. Most have been hiding and thanking people critical of the thread.
It is not about forcing. You can no longer force anything, it's all about encouarging best practice, working together to improve things. That starts with discussing things and not hiding behind 'well I don't want to deal with this/it'll hurt my business', which is a short sighted win-lose scenario.
It is about having the information so we can make a choice and maybe this discussion will lead to some of the one man shows, either taking on a backup person, or maybe teaming up with another one man show, or even having just a contingency 'shit hits the fan' written plan for someone to follow to keep things running in the short term.
We are and my view is that >age and >1 person reduces the risk of deadpool which is undeniable.
@serverian and @INIZ claim not be be one man shows. Maybe they are being 'vague' as you describe it. Personally I would prefer honesty. I am not discriminating and even if I was there is nothing wrong with it. We all make choices and are free to make a choice as to who we give our money to. Some people will be happy to go with them. I would be happy to go with them based on what I have seen of them here, but if everything was equal and I was running something critical or work related, then I may go for the 5 man show! Just like if everything else was equal and you had the choice of a LADA or a BMW, you would probably go for the BMW. And you would not think of that as 'discriminating' against or 'fucking around with the people trying to make a living in the LADA factory'. See my point and how stupid you come across?
Yeah, that's what we need, more people being 'vague and not completely honest', when you are buying something from them! We have enough of these shit bag 'vague' lying people like politicians already. It's because of these types that 1 million people in Iraq got massacred, 5 million maimed or made homeless and a fully functioning state reduced to rubble. You're a dufus and have lost all credibility with me if this is what you really encourage!
I wonder what happens when a company with 200 employees messes up your server?
No reason to cry in advance, everybody can research a product before they buy it. If you can't, avoid it. It's very simple.
He will then tell you that you should just buy from companies that have >1000 employees. Those employees then should be sitting infront of the server holding each others hand while typing. Because a bus could drive through the datacenter and hit the 500 others to death.
Stuff happens. With 200 employees, as long as around 20 have knowledge of the systems there should be around a 1,000,000% less chance of things deadpooling if one of these person is out of action compared to lone ranger.
How can you research when the info is not forthcoming and people like @Frost encourage providers to 'not [be] completely honest' and to be 'vague' when asked?
Most one man show providers (you know who you are) have been hiding and thanking people critical of the thread and have not engaged in this thread at all. What does that tell us?
@asterisk14
So you rather have:
3x lonely guys in basements of their moms at age of 36 with suicidal thoughts and no idea what theyre doing and depending on their providers and solus and theyre well proud of their "team" (billing, marketing/PR/sales and admin)
than
1x fine guy who is around 17, has some good knowledge of everything and has to be slightly vague about his "Team" to not get discriminated
The chance that the admin guy jumps in front of a bus because his life sucks should be a lot bigger than the 17yr old who has a good life getting hit by a bus and not surviving it. And who says passwords are shared when it's more than one person in the company?
Research as in read outside the scope of their website. I have too much experience to believe that someone who did their research can be fooled. Sorry.