Beware of vpsforvpn

totally_not_banned

@stxsh said:
I just don't advocate clipping the wings off a baby bird for no good reason.

Why not? It's fun. You should try it.

nulled

Jealousy, or vengeance; the boy probably had your service terminated or rejected and is now feeling baaaad butthurt.

@dapavn said:
I don't understand why people try to defame and sabotage without any reason. We're trying to build a business and help the community with low prices. Yet when others post such nonsense without any basis, it harms us as a business. We haven't harmed anyone.

jsg

@Naomii said:

@jsg said:
Nope, that's just cheap talk. The game people like you and @ascicode play simply is "Look! He is guilty until proven innocent!"

Ok.

The eggshells started on what this business is really based on: https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3832358/#Comment_3832358

Which frankly paints @Nyr in a worse light than @davpn. Plus your statement is misleading if not even false. Their business is NOT based on Nyr's script, it's based on providing VPS.
But yes, I do see Nyr's (and presumably your) point of davpn using - or more precisely, courtesy providing - an (at least allegedly) 8 years old script. But then, using or providing or even being based on old versions of pretty much everything is bloody common in the business; kindly note the worth 'business' which i.a. boils down to 'scale' as in "scale of operations". Why? Because you, I, and John Doe can continually hunt down and upgrade to or install the newest version of everything; the worst case outcome is a broken system; for a provider though the risk of many or even all of their systems being non-operational can be, and often is, a death sentence. So, accordingly, providers strongly tend to prefer known to be fully working versions.

A short explanation re "paints Nyr in a worse light than davpn": if as an author one complains one should clearly indicate what one considers illegal/improper practice/unacceptabl/(whatever. Nyr however basically just barked his/her being malcontent, in fact in such vagueness that davpn basically asked, uhm, what is the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I do value open source contributions (incl. Nyr's). A lot. But that doesn't change the laws of communication; if you say something then say it in a way that can be and highly likely is understood!

I don't really care. In fact, I approve of the service. Just be wary, there's a balance between low cost (the only thing you can point out about them) and deadpool. Unless you steal hardware, then it's still profitable at low cost. (Alpharacks joke).

But that is NOT what @ascicode did. What he did was a simple and vulgar case of "Look! He is guilty until proven innocent! (and you seemed to be on his side).

I myself have no server from vpsforvpn for diverse reasons, mostly unrelated to them/their offer, nor do I have any kind of relationship with them. But I strongly dislike people willy nilly harming or even damaging companies, especially young ones.
Look, in their early phase vpsforvpn might well "weigh" less than ascicode here on LET. Even putting their only significant argument ("we have many, many happy customers!") may fail to work against the no matter how abstruse and quite likely ill intended or very careless mumbling of a LETian with some "weight".

And it's a dirty unfair game. ascicode has next to nothing to loose while vpsforvpn potentially have their business and some livelihoods on the line.
That's why I took off the gloves and took care of ascicode's cheap and dirty assault by showing what it actually is. A pile of smelly crap.

Nyr

@jsg said: if you say something then say it in a way that can be and highly likely is understood!

You are right, I could have done way better, so apologies in that regard.

VPSforVPN

@host_c said:
I am curios if what @VPSforVPN has to say.

I have nothing to do with this.