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
Pretty much what is happening now. Large companies operating in scale offering plenty of resources vs small companies offering limited resources.
That's a point. I assume there's some form of management better than this simple forum AI, but given that there is little recorded on edited threads, well.. who knows.
AI? I think of whatever is behind this forum as AS (Artificial Stupidity) for short, or ASS for long.
Then again back to ontopic: OP is complaining about "none of the unlimited hosts actually being unlimited". That's one category of people. The other category of people (someone's grandmother sharing recipes) probably also knows its not unlimited, but knows that she needs not worry in case some reddit thread suddenly is interested in her apple pie (damn i should be writing marketing strategies or smth).
For both categories of people the goal of the advertisement is clear, and both fully understand that unlimited is fair-use. I fail to see any problem here.
The third and last category is the category of assholes abusing the unlimited thingy, mainly LET users. For those users too there is a solution, and to quote the rules: "No unlimited offers".
Done.
Wow this is still continuing?
If there's anything we love more on LET than shitposting; it's pointlessly master debating ourselves.
Thought everything was already said about this topic.
so this is how you make a nice shit post?
be sarcastic.
post a funny or dumb picture.
one or both of the above.
At least when everyone is not arguing, being dicks or sarcastic trolls they are generally quite helpful.
I wish their were more not dead web hosting comunities.
Sweety, I'm not just going to give away my secrets, but you're on the right path.
There are, but they're all pay-for-play, or stuckup pricks. Sometimes both.
Ok, so on this. Difficult to form a solid opinion on it. It's not quite what I'd been asking for but I understand that I'm asking for a lot, so I tried to give it a chance. I could be wrong, but they could be too, from what I can see here. Someone running that much data on Wordpress through shared hosting is not someone I would shy away from suggesting may have installed a WP backup plugin that is creating zip files of their content. I saw that more than a few times at HG, I would have to approach a few users because a perfectly acceptable website was backing itself up repeatedly. So you'd have a 300GB website taking 1.5TB in no time, with most of that being backups.
I think that's a fair opinion on that content, to say maybe it proves me wrong and maybe it doesn't. It surely can't be only one of those from the data given.
I'm not kidding or trying to be insulting, I realize it's going to come across that way. Could you share with me your level of education? Because if I'm trying to converse with someone that I should not expect to understand some things yet, it makes sense for me to give them some space/time to learn rather than engage them on it. I'm asking because if you are beyond what I would call grade school here, you seriously need to go review how a dictionary is used. There are multiple uses for many/most words, they can mean different things in different contexts or depending on the intent of the writer. If this is not something you have yet learned in the course of your education, you may stop here, the rest of this post is no longer relevant, and I wish you the best of luck with your schooling.
Now, if you do happen to understand that not every definition has to be applied at once and that the dictionary lists multiple possible definitions of the word, I'd like to go a step further. Let's go philosophical here, and this may be where we separate, but let's see if it is. Do you believe that the simplest answer is the best assumption when intent is unknown? This to say that if you have two competing theories of someone's use of a word, is the simplest assumption the more likely one? Why or why not?
To expand beyond that, can you tell me which is the simplest assumption of the intent behind the use of the word "unlimited" when used by a web host, and why?
It is my position that, given the physical impossibility of the second option, the only logical assumption is that the answer is #1 unless proven otherwise. If you disagree, can you share with me your logic that leads you to assume that the most likely assumption is that they have intended the meaning that is not physically possible? Can you share with me your experience with web hosts that you believe leads to the reasonable conclusion that when faced with two reasons to use a word, they would naturally lean toward the intention that is physically impossible?
Finally, if you believe this entire line is flawed because #1 cannot be a logical interpretation of the use of the word "unlimited" can you tell me about the criteria you use to exclude dictionary definitions? Please do not continue to suggest that one must meet all possible definitions here, if so then you did not take my suggestion to review how a dictionary is used. In such a case, please read this and start over:
https://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Dictionary
If you are doing that now, I'd like to point out part 4 as I found this to be a particularly interesting idea by it's author:
I found that interesting because of this:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlimited
I think we could agree that Merriam Webster is among the more widely accepted dictionaries available, if not the most respected among them (it's owner, Britannica, was founded in 1768). Merriam Webster takes note to suggest to me first, meaning most commonly (aka most reasonable assumption of the use of the word), that "unlimited" should be interpreted as:
Effectively, disable system quotas and you can create accounts that meet the most likely definition of unlimited. This to say, any suggestion that unlimited cannot be provided or is physically impossible, is not in line with most likely dictionary definitions (of which multiple exist, but we're assuming Merriam Webster knows best as to most likely, want to counter that? State your case.). Now that we've established that, please scroll back up to the top of this post and read it again. Once you've reached this part of the post a second time:
I don't expect you to admit that you're most likely incorrect, or that you've at least made an unlikely assumption as to the use of the word unlimited, but I do expect you to know that you've done so now. You should examine the bias in yourself that led you to skip over the most logical first assumption as to the intended interpretation of the word, and begin to train that behavior out. Of course, if logical and reasonable thought patterns are not of particular value to you, then there is no need to do that. I just figured you were going down that route.
In my honest opinion, whether or not it's right (it's just observation of available information), your bias exists because you're still trying to sell 10GB of storage on shared hosting for nearly $15/m. You probably blame the big unlimited providers for sales you don't make. You may be right, but choosing to hold yourself back from what you think is working for other people is a choice you've made, and only you are responsible for that. If the unlimited hosts are taking all of your sales but they don't work, eventually people would find their way to you, right? That isn't the case though, because grandma's cooking blog is online 86% of the time and she doesn't care about your passion or know what uptimerobot is. It is not universally viewed as noble to fall on your sword here, it only pleases a minority of forum posters who probably aren't buying anyway.
I know my bias in the opposite direction exists because I worked at HostGator and saw first hand the actual real world impact of unlimited at scale, and while people have many legitimate complaints about the company, that detail has nothing to do with anyone but tiny fraction (likely starts with 0.00) of them. Prior to that job, I shared your opinions. I couldn't share them anymore when I observed my opinions to be false at scale. I came to understand the intent (should I mention that this gives me insight into the intended use of the word or nah?) and the realities.
@jarland what do you mean this filesystem only supports 32 petabytes? I PAID FOR UNLIMITED SERVICE!?!
I've edited my original comment as my intention wasn't to drag your job into this discussion, that is indeed unrelated to my point about the language. I apologize and thank you for the remark.
As I've explained before, I don't completely disagree with you about the possibility to offer a sustainable "unlimited" model. It just works for some companies while does not work for others. I am skeptical, anyway, that you can keep under control your resources when you don't enforce some limits, so you're more prone to overloaded servers and outages.
If your target market is Granny, Pops, and (thanks to @bsdguy) the Butcher and Baker down the road, it works just fine, because few need a gig, little alone several, as they do all promotion on FB/etc, or pay to have it done, and their homepage is, well, a landing page which may have a PDF and pretty javascripted turd to view the menu.
It's just those of us
who love to abuse servicesassholes who bother to try to see what we can get away with. Then, we turn fifteen and/or get a job.@Jarland
Now that is what I call a good arguement.
You must have went through alot of coffees in order to right that on new years.
Was actually well rested, rarity lately
Chair, floor, or in the crib with your latest revision?
Melatonin is excellent.
So is strong alcohol.
Well, DreamHost are also very open about their Unlimited Policy.
https://www.dreamhost.com/legal/unlimited-policy/
Dreamhost are known for unlimited, it has been their bread and butter for what feels like centuries
No. You are talking about limits through the back door, not about unlimited.
You are right, of course, insofar as every grown up client/person is supposed to know that nothing, not even the universe, is unlimited. But still, one doesn't need take "unlimited" to mean "infinite" to understand the marketing term "unlimited" to be a lie and a gross one at that.
Let's look at it. One obvious limit is the limits experienced by the provider itself, e.g. the amount of disk space or bandwidth available. Simple rule: Being limited myself I must either not offer "unlimited" or I must specify my own limits, that is, what I actually offer means "within my own limits I do not impose any limits upon the client".
Which immediately brings up an interesting question, namely the fairness issue. If client A can and does use, say 30% of some available resource, how can the provider then properly serve and satisfy the needs of his other, say, 20 customers?
The truth is simple. "unlimited" is the ugly sister of "shared and oversold". And it's a lie, no matter how one turns it (e.g. to not mean "infinite"). The basic model is always the same: a provider has a finite amount of resources which he tries to turn into a profit. The source of "unlimited" is the fact that most customers use only a fraction of the resources they buy and the fact that there are usually very many customers which invites the provider to sell those resources yet another time. And the next step is to put the total of the providers resources (say, 1 PB of disk space) next to what 90% or 95% of the customers actually use and then declare, say, 5 times the amount of what 90+% of customers use as "unlimited".
Well noted, having VPSs myself and the very product VPS being based on the above mentioned mechanism I do not see anything evil per se in that "distribute what we've got over thousands of customers and what they actually need" model. Using marketing terms like "unlimited", though, is a con in my minds eye.
TL;DR: Stay away from "unlimited" offers. They are basically a scam and usually the limit is somewhere in the small print (e.g. tos).
Oh dear. And I thought it's finally over...
is this thread ... unlimited?
Would you please kindly explain the problem you see?
Why not? You kind of glossed over that here. If unlimited means something equivalent to "no defined limit" and the account has no defined limit, is the lie not something additional that is imposed by you?
Irrelevant because "unlimited" here means something equivalent to "no defined limit." You're overthinking it from there. You know that accounts can be made without quotas, and that means there is no defined limit. Reading something beyond that is your burden, note that your acceptance of that burden does not place it on someone else's shoulders.
Excellent question. Do you want to know the real world answer or the one that you can put in a proposal that doesn't involve theoretical risk? I can tell you how it actually works at one of the largest unlimited hosts but if you're more interested in the theory being easy to swallow, it won't be of much use to you.
I'll give you the real world answer though. The question doesn't really come into play because out of thousands of servers, you might have to engage in a conversation about it with one customer throughout the course of a year. That case is easily dealt with in that the usage is that someone tried to back up their desktop computer on it (like Dropbox), or they took repeat backups of their website and never cleaned the backups, and usually had no idea (and was therefore happy to clean them up). While plenty of problems exist in theory, almost none do in practice. Such will be part of competing in a market like shared hosting, balancing risk. To do that you consider theory, and it's understandable that a new host only has theory to use, but if you happen to have the sample size to view the reality then that is a much more logical thing to use when calculating risk to define the balance.
I'll ask you, personally, to qualify that statement. Prove to me that the three unlimited hosting accounts I have (with 3 providers) are a scam and that I am worse off by using their product, by an actual measurable metric. It's a simple ask. If I'm in a bad place because I've chosen these, I don't know it. But if you can state it as a fact, you must know it. So measure it for me.
It is my perspective that you've assumed the definition of infinite again, bypassing the definition of the word unlimited. I've stated quite a case for why unlimited simply means that limits are not defined for the account, and you know very well that a Linux account without a quota is not a lie and can absolutely be provided. You can't just bypass this and claim to accept that definition while continuing to work from another definition, and then claim that a conclusion based on the impossibly/unlikely definition is superior when you haven't made an adequate argument for why that definition is relevant.
You summoned @jarland again and beat a dead horse. The rest should be obvious.
#dicks_unlimited
I'm famous for beating dead horses, as is bsdguy. Expect 40 pages.
I'm getting hard.
@jarland
"unlimited" does mean "infinite" in one way or another and maybe around corners.
Even the resources at a really large operation like e.g. DO are limited - not only as in "not infinite" but also as in "limits being imposed". DO doesn't buy unlimited bandwidth; in fact, it is often the providers themselves (like e.g. DO) who (as customers) do impose a limit by specifying in their order e.g. "40 Gb/s".
But that isn't even my point. It's your point to again and again insist that "unlimited" does not mean "infinite".
My point is more about "character" and trust. Of course a provider will use/allocate/distribute resources in a profitable way. One might discuss how ethical it is to basically sell resources already payed for by customers a second time to another customer but that too wasn't my point.
I need not prove anything re. dreamhost or others. "unlimited" is a lie, simple as that - and that can be proven; it can not possibly be true because the providers resources are limited which constitutes his maximum ("limit") as he can't give more than he himself has. I btw. also do not need to convince you because "convincing jarland" isn't my goal. My goal is to show my view and opinion; maybe jarland (or anyone) thinks about it, maybe not. But if you feel like it, get me an account at e.g. dreamhost and I will quite quickly demonstrate its not being unlimited.
Business is very much based on trust, and trust is much to do with experiencing a business entity as acting properly and conforming to its statements and obligations. Accordingly I prefer a provider giving me tangible numbers like "1 GB RAM" or "2 TB traffic" as well as tangible parameters like 99.5% availablity.
Which touches another important point: I'm not only interested in numbers (or the their absence ("unlimited")), I'm also interested in the quality; well noted not necessarily the best quality. I think, we all know that one and the same set of numbers (e.g. 2 vCores, 1 GB mem, 20 GB disk, 2 TB traffic) can mean very different experiences, ranging from "what a lousy fuckup!" to "just purring nice and smooth".
@bsdguy Jesus fuck, we already got the dictionary-spergs to shut up.. why do you have to restart this pointless diatribe?
I noticed vultr advertising "infinite possibilities" and "infinite OS combinations"
This made my eye twitch. Ever so slightly.
Pardon me but that's bullshit.
For a start, I'm but a mere user here while @jarland is the big admin; I strongly doubt that I could "summon" him.
In case the simple truth interests you: I logged in like almost every day and due to @WSS having mentioned me (in this thread) I had a quick look to see whether he had spilled my little secret (I have 4.5 dicks but 4 of them are tiny and only the half one is of decent size).
Being here I found an interesting topic and jarland being jarland happened to have offered an attractive entry point into a discussion.
I do not hate jarland, I am not automatically against whatever he says, I do not "summon" him; it just so happens that jarland tends to put things in a certain way. Also, even if I considered jarland as an enemy (which I do *not) I'd still prefer a smart enemy over a dumb and boring "friend".
You know, actually I think that both of us, jarland and myself are often not spot on but rather on kind of extreme positions - but I consider that useful and great as a discussion will usually profit from offering quite different angles and points of view.
Have a good new year.