I’m Going to Tell You About Web Hosting

raindog308

ricardo said: I'm off to mirror your site and stick some ads on it. Don't mention it.

GM2015 said: raindog357.com?

Not bad. Unfortunately most of my other favorite rifle calibers are metric and raindog762x54R just doesn't have the same ring to it.

doughmanes

raindog308 said: raindog762x54R

I carry my M44 out to the mailbox at night in case a neighborhood dog or coyote is around

GM2015

Yeah. Raindog9mm.com also sounds like the site of a 10 9 year old skid playing csgo.

raindog308 said: Not bad. Unfortunately most of my other favorite rifle calibers are metric and raindog762x54R just doesn't have the same ring to it.

ricardo

butthurt

lol, touched a raw nerve with the internet comment. i do apologise...most sincerely

raindog308

doughmanes said: I carry my M44 out to the mailbox at night in case a neighborhood dog or coyote is around

The muzzle flash at night alone will scare them away! Seriously that thing is practically a flamethrower. The cartridge really wasn't designed for the shorter barrel length.

I hate my Mozin-Nagants. Love the heritage, love the cheap surplus ammo, love the "you can't break it" construction. But it's eight pounds of metal-capped wood slamming back on your shoulder...as the old joke goes, always take shots from your Mozin-Nagant in pairs: first shot knocks your spine out of alignment, second puts it back right.

doughmanes

I don't care for MN's except for a few of the rarer models and the M44.

I've got a female friend who I train to shoot that is small framed and can handle getting knocked around by some Silver Bear. She loves it.

Raymii

@CFarence said:
Holy chrome plugins, that's a lot of chrome plugins
@souen said:
Most of the issues raised in the blog post come down to one word: expectations.

"Unlimited" resources is a controversial selling point, the argument in favour of it the average often being the consumer or target market is expected to know the resources are unlimited but some conditions apply. The problem is that sometimes the terms are worded broadly to give providers the right to terminate service at their discretion without measurable numbers on what is considered abusive. Some will give an estimate in the fine print or when asked directly, which provides some reassurance, some don't. The ones that don't then try to reinforce arbitrary limits after signup are setting themselves and their existing clients up for trouble and waste the time of everyone involved due to the inconsistencies and confusion.

Another problem is that some providers market to people who may not have much technical knowledge but for various reasons have to get a website running on their own. They might search Google for setup guides, read reviews to find a decent host, but don't necessarily know what is considered normative industry practice. Thirdly, just because something is prevalent in an industry doesn't necessarily mean it's good practice.

Some good providers inform clients, e.g. with a relevant faq, tell them what options they have or how they can solve the root problem. Despite the deep frustration of impractical and impossible requests, they help them be the better clients that they want to have in the industry, not publicly single them out as bad clients. (If the client makes it public then the provider can certainly respond and defend their position.)

Twitter is a semi-support desk for some providers that take an AMA approach on their profile. If the company Twitter profile isn't for support, try reinforcing that message again, e.g. sticky tweet redirecting to live chat or available support channel(s) and making it as easy as possible for people to adapt.

Talking about the problems is a solid first step, but how about things you (the provider, as well as customer) can do to make the situation better?

tl;dr: the aggravation is understandable with customers that bend rules, attract network attacks and intentionally ask for more resources/support than they paid for. Imho there are some problematic practices that compound the problems brought up in the post and also led to some customers having what many will consider unreasonable demands.

Thank you for the on-topic discussion, more people in the thread should do that. You're indeed right, expectation management is key here. Are you managed, unsupported, SLA and what's your target? Technical crowd has other demands than non-technical mon/pop shops. And, directing that in a good way is a seperate art.

@ricardo said:
gooood one.

I'm off to mirror your site and stick some ads on it.
Don't mention it.

Not sure who you're rambling against here, but if you want, my site's license explicitly allows that. For your reference:

All the text on this website is free as in freedom unless stated otherwise. This means you can use it in any way you want, you can copy it, change it the way you like and republish it, as long as you release the (modified) content under the same license to give others the same freedoms you've got.
All the code on this website is licensed under the GNU GPL v3 license unless already licensed under a license which does not allows this form of licensing or if another license is stated on that page / in that software.

From: https://raymii.org/s/static/About.html#Disclaimer

So go ahead, I hope you spend your time in a better way than on this nice forum trolling...

Raymii

@CFarence said:
Holy chrome plugins, that's a lot of chrome plugins

It's firefox with Noscript, Lastpass, Ublock origin and HTTPS everywhere.

raindog308

Raymii said: Thank you for the on-topic discussion, more people in the thread should do that.

But LET.

Raymii said: this nice forum

You're on the wrong site :-)

ricardo

@Raymii

If you follow the resulting comments, and if you read my original reference to copyright/fair use then that's all that needed to be said, and all I was pointing out. Comprehension issues draws it off topic, and it wasn't hard to comprehend.

Referencing your own GPL license while copy/pasting other people's work outside the scope of a GPL license is a bit silly, but again... it's a comprehension thing.

Raymii

@raindog308 said:
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but we're not all sharing Linux ISOs...

Not sure about you but at least one of my servers is doing just that?

 eth0  /  monthly

       month        rx      |     tx      |    total    |   avg. rate
    ------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------
      Dec '15    187.85 GiB |  968.34 GiB |    1.13 TiB |    3.62 Mbit/s
      Jan '16    500.39 GiB |    5.99 TiB |    6.48 TiB |   20.78 Mbit/s
      Feb '16      8.75 GiB |  218.37 GiB |  227.12 GiB |   25.69 Mbit/s
    ------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------
    estimated    295.60 GiB |    7.20 TiB |    7.49 TiB |

Raymii

@raindog308 said:
You're on the wrong site :-)

Maybe I like ' depraved cess pools of seedboxery. '

Some community members and topics are nice, the others I just ignore. mental troll filter...

CFarence

@Raymii said:
It's firefox with Noscript, Lastpass, Ublock origin and HTTPS everywhere.

Oops my bad, kinda looked like chrome when I glanced over it on my phone

vRozenSch00n

Raymii said: So archive.org and archive.is are violating as well?

Theoretically yes (this is debatable), but in practice it depends on whether the copyright owner sues or not.

In the Internet Marketing area, there is a term called PLR (Private Label Rights), where a person can modify the content and add his/her copyright, rename the title and sell them as an MRR (Master Resell Rights) product. Sadly, many of them remix things that are available for free in the public domain and sell them.

In this case, I prefer to use GPL and CC where the originator still get a fair attribution.

boxelder

@Dylan said:
She works for Inmotion Hosting

I read their affiliate agreement: http://www.inmotionhosting.com/hosting-affiliate-terms
It's expertly crafted to screw affiliates out of compensation - it's basically stealing a % of traffic from affiliates, something they shamelessly confirmed on live chat.

Raymii

@boxelder said:

They have some clear requirements, but what makes you say they screw afiliates? Can you please elaborate on that part?

boxelder

@Raymii said:

Ctrl-f for "$71.40" on that page for the pertinent paragraph. Not only does the annual price of the contract have to reach that amount (disqualifying the entry level plan that many newbies will opt for, even if they pay annually), they also state they disqualify "hosting accounts with smaller subscription lengths". I went one by one with them on live chat to confirm they were playing dirty pool.

linuxthefish

@jarland said:
I never had a problem with it at HG. Use 1TB even as long as it's related to your websites and not a backup of your vacation photos outside of public_html. 100GB is nothing. There's so few trying to use that much it doesn't matter.

To be fair they did allow me to upload a 1TB .php file for the month I had an account with them, do you know what type of storage they use? Some sort of ever expanding SAN machine?

Nekki

So, I heard there were girls in this thread?

Raymii

@linuxthefish said:
To be fair they did allow me to upload a 1TB .php file for the month I had an account with them, do you know what type of storage they use? Some sort of ever expanding SAN machine?

Probably just a lot of overselling and capacity for two or three folks who actually use the space...