Big Brother shuts down blogety and 7300 blogs

popeye said:
Why not kill the offending blogs?? Why fuckin sledge hammer the whole damn thing.
Click to expand...

The datacenter does not keep root access to the server to log in and disable accounts - Their only recourse is to pull the plug, unless the offending content is something that can wait until the server owner gets around to logging in, to remove it.

Having been in the dedicated and shared hosting industry myself, if something blatantly illegal or against my terms of use had been reported, I would have pulled the plug and then dealt with the situation. Datacenters won't allow themselves to become cesspools for illegal activity, as this just invites more illegal activity, bad press, DDOS attacks, and forced action by government agencies. Look what happened to foonet - The owner (and others, through servers hosted there) took part in a criminal DDOS scheme, and their entire datacenter (including colocated servers) was seized and shut down.

Running free (or paid) hosting services come with an inherent amount of risk to the owner. Not having external backups of a hosting operation is not the government's or datacenter's fault - It's the owner of the free hosting company. Basically, he didn't back up client data, and lost access to it. What would have happened if his hard drive crashed, or server fried (assuming he may have had a backup HD in the server)? Same case - his data would be lost, and the site would be down.

Title should read "Incompetent blog host blames lack of backups on feds",
 


subigo said:
lolololololol... I take it you'll be here all week?
Click to expand...
LayeredPanel (a shitty defunct control panel) easily handles 100,000 members on a high end server.

A completely custom server setup could (and does) easily handle the numbers I said. And if you really want I'll PM you the free hosting site that I'm talking about.

kblessinggr said:
Static file hosting only with geo-shities style limitations? :P Cuz I'd be calling bullshit otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, but they weren't cheap servers.
He owns his own servers, but he offered the same setup to me at $1,500/mo per server.
 
ly2 from WF said:
Child porn, piracy, no excuse to shut all the blogs down because >1% of them are acting out.
Click to expand...

Sorry, i just gotta be the dick that thinks it's hysterical that you used the greater-than sign here. Probably more accurate this way.
 
cardine said:
No, but they weren't cheap servers.
He owns his own servers, but he offered the same setup to me at $1,500/mo per server.
Click to expand...

No one spends 1,500/month on a free hosting server.

Also you'd have to specify from who, because for example spending 1,500/month at say rackspace gets you the same hardware, and less support than if you spent 400/month at liquidweb or softlayer. So cost means nothing you'll have to get down to specifics as I'm still calling bullshit on that one.
 
kblessinggr said:
No one spends 1,500/month on a free hosting server.

Also you'd have to specify from who, because for example spending 1,500/month at say rackspace gets you the same hardware, and less support than if you spent 400/month at liquidweb or softlayer. So cost means nothing you'll have to get down to specifics as I'm still calling bullshit on that one.
Click to expand...
Somebody will spend $1,500/mo on a free hosting server if it can handle that many active users.

I already told you, the guy owns his own servers. That's the price he was quoting me at if I wanted the same setup (and part of the $1,500/mo would be covering the fact I was using his own custom setup).

The way the servers were setup (in his case and in mine) half of the time a new account just meant a new folder (mod_vhost_alias ftw). Unless the user uses MySQL (which under 10% of them did) there really isn't that much load that an individual account adds to the server.

If you want to know the site PM me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom