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
I think Jar likely misinterpreted the comments. I doubt brown nosing the former employee was done to improve employment prospects. Lots get lost in the comprehension of forum posts, emails, text messages, etc.
Okay then. Sorry if I misunderstood.
Same bro. That's why I spoke up. If I misunderstood, so be it, I'll take my lashings and apologize.
Oh look, @alexvolk has negative things to say about me. It must be sometime o'clock on a day that ends in Y. I don't know what I did to you that made you act out this way for 5 years now, but congrats to me for being so influential in your life. If you'd like an autographed photo of the person who has singlehandedly caused you so much grief that you would follow him around like a sad puppy for 5 years, I'd be happy to send one.
I don't hate you, you know. If you stopped berating me at every available opportunity, I'd forget you ever did within a week. That's the difference between me and you, you have to remind me who you are every time you do it. It takes both the username and the inevitable berating to jog my memory. Meanwhile I apparently live rent free in your head, because it always seems like you're waiting for me to appear so you can pounce.
Aye. There's no benefit at this stage for me to talk positively of my former employer, other than a basic desire to be somewhat mature. Only on LET would there be a benefit to explaining this, as conspiracy is literally in the water supply.
Address sent.
I've nothing positive to say. Just waiting when somebody is going to fail
againYou remember this? Right?
No offense intended but I take that to be quite normal everyday american business blabla. Heard it a thousand times.
Re what @jar (an ex DO employee if I'm not mistaken) said, I find his point about the chairman interesting and reasonable although it doesn't change my perception of that new CEO (wouldn't be the first time a smart chairman or board made a not so smart decision).
I know, but I could always hope for better. Arms are always open for a hug on my side of the fence.
I do now, thanks for the reminder, and kind of proving my point.
Damn, I can't seem to find a link to that post where @jar wrote something like he wishes to remain with DO as his last job... or something like that... I know it has to be somewhere in this Vanilla board.
That link would make this popcorn pop... and I know it's there somewhere.
Haven't we all had jobs we were pumped about at the start and later found were either not what we'd expected/were promised? Or where there were simply better opportunities elsewhere? Isn't that pretty common?
Aye. I can certainly say the company has every potential to go the distance too. It's not like I bailed out of a burning building.
Oh definitely. Been through that several times! 😁💩
Oh... It's common.
Economic health of a business, stock profits, stock market value, growth are all of them very different things. For example, a company can introduce itself into the stock market to gain access to funding. Then, use the funds to grow more and the profits after a while again be putted into investments for more growth or innovation. The company may be not owing a penny to a Bank, employs or partners but not returning a single penny to the investors because of the reinvestment. The company is in well economic standing, rising to the long economy but not being profitable for the current investors at the moment. So, if those investors that want immediate profit want to change that, can milk out the company changing the charging model, reducing the investments, cutting costs or liquidate the stocks to other people or invest funds that has a completely different business model in mind.
Unfortunately, a lot of companies nowadays has split up from their stocks. Decades ago, the rising of a stock was tied up with the company's actual standing, the innovation, the sales, the employs.
Now, any fake rumor or stock market aggressive games can destroy the investors or a company, even if the real standing of the company is good...
Dunno about that. Their "community tutorials" are absolutely full of errors and bad explanations, sometimes to the point of being outright dangerous. They're absolutely not a place I would ever recommend people to go for help.
You are absolutely right and I enjoy to see that others see that (less than perfect docu) too.
That said one should - and I do - recognize and laud that DO at least tries to provide guides and while there are often errors those guides actually often are helpful but I agree that more redaction would be desirable.
I hope you let them know if it's too bad. Coming from you it actually means something, but those same things are frequently said by people who simply make mistakes and so they tend to get shrugged off if not specific. I can't count the times I've responded to "this tutorial sucks" only to dig for answers and find them using the wrong OS, skipping instructions, etc.
Hm... very interesting.
I have never needed an superb-great explanation from a tutorial. I just try to understand the author's opinion, read the pattern, compare with other tutorials and research them in official documents / manuals.
If I recall correctly, I tried leaving comments and those were left unanswered, I messaged support and it was shrugged off as "they are community contributions", and just generally I didn't get the impression that anybody actually cared about the quality of tutorials on there.
I eventually gave up, and just started warning people away from it.
Just one random off-the-cuff example that I happen to have handy: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-install-node-js-on-ubuntu-18-04 suggests installing a module globally for "making it available to other projects using the same version of Node.js", which is decidedly not how you are supposed to use npm, and I've had to 'unteach' people on IRC this advice several times now.
I believe there was also one tutorial somewhere that recommended setting insecure permissions/ownership on something, that could lead to root privilege escalation.
Is that was has given DO the reputation of being developer friendly?
I'd be fairly sure that it was intended as a backlink-building exercise. Good brand building though, it's not as if people landing on those pages from a search engine are in 'buy mode', but the links help rank for queries where people are.
What a bad news for users. I simply don't like that kind of "investment banker" CEO.
But, who knows, maybe it is a good news for DO's competitors.
Developer friendly :
chmod -R 777 /*That, and the API, and the $50 free credit coupons they were throwing around "hackathons" and developer events and whatnot. Free money pretty reliably buys you brand loyalty.
Can't complain about hosting providers that offer APIs, the less I need them to butter me up with upselling the better.
Hackathons... seems too much like a branding exercise.
Perhaps the true altruists would just stick 100K into the EFF, provide us with some open source goodies or take a stance on a topic like privacy, that kind of thing.
Probably an old fart but I don't need 'assistance' from the hosting provider to do stuff, just provide the hosting reliably and preferably cheap, as in cost effective for me and them.
OT but on the new CEO theme... GoDaddy gets a new CEO. But for different reason(s).
The later was a BadDaddy 😁
I remember the time when the term "developer friendly" meant that you don't have to deal with server administration. Something like WebFaction.
Then DigitalOcean popped up, trying to improve their search rankings by "How to set up and configure xyz on Ubuntu?" tutorials all written by their users.
The staff DigitalOcean have so much confidence in their secure, scalable cloud platform in 12 datacenters around the world, that they have to put CloudFlare in front of their own website.
I once was asked about deploying a server there, but quickly said no because they just started requesting photo IDs via cleartext e-mails.
If that's true that's a scar in their image but nothing major because putting Cloudf^#$ in front of ones web site is perceived as normal and even as "healthy" by many (most?) people.
Was only a matter of time to drum up the interest & dependent companies on their platform before they started ramping up prices. The "free" credit came at a cost
Meh, it's more about tanking constant attacks than anything. They're pretty decent at providing protection that isn't destructive for highly dynamic/interactive content/control panels.
Did they? I don't remember a change in pricing. When was that?