Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Offers All-You-Can-Eat Storage and Bandwidth
Lucas123 writes "Yahoo this week opened up a new monthly Web Hosting service for small and medium sized businesses that allows unlimited hosted storage capacity and bandwidth for $11.95 a month. Yahoo had been charging $12 a month for 5GB of disk space and 200GB of bandwidth; $20 a month for 10GB disk space and 400GB of bandwidth; and $40 for 20GB disk space and 500GB bandwidth.."
Interesting to see a big company like Yahoo try their hand at the "unlimited" marketing game. Anybody who's had experience in the past with any company who offers "unlimited" knows better- Anybody remember Comcast "unlimited" broadband?
.0001% of their resources. Turns out you can have 500 gb of files, but coincidentally it takes just enough cpu to copy the file that they kick you off. Or some hosting companies go ahead and say it in the TOS- you can't have more than 1% of the alotted bandwidth, other than that it's unlimited!
Bunches of online hosting companies offer "unlimited" services with as much space or bandwidth as you need- and all these companies have a disclaimer in their TOS that explains they can't use more than
Eventually, yes, they get brought down. Law suits, investigations, what have you. They will eventually add their limits to the fine print, just like everybody before them. The catch? Everybody with the host will suffer horrible service up till the day the limit is defined, and after that, it probably won't get much better. That is, if you're not already kicked off their service for using too much of the unlimited service. Anybody not completely disgusted with the service at this point will most likely be offended that their freedom is being taken away and may leave out of protest alone.
You'd think Yahoo would learn better than start a huge marketing campaign on a service they can't possibly keep profitable. Think about it- Yahoo Music Unlimited just closed! It was a nice idea, except it wasn't making them money! This is a huge PR disaster waiting to happen.
Let's just take them up on the offer and get rid of them. Somebody call Google and explain to them there's a new host that will host Google's search engine for $12. We'll see how long Yahoo stays unlimited.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
[*] $11.95 does not include our $200/day charge for being 'Slashdotted'.
My blog
Will this service continue after Yahoo is bought? Is it just something to cause their price to go up before they are bought by claiming more customers?
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
Hey Slashdot admins, are you moving over to Yahoo? I bet that'd cut back on your hosting costs by quite a bit. That'd also be a great test of how truly unlimited it is.
11.95 a month -- like a WD mybook that has a monthly fee -- and blocks the illegal files...
Yahoo's move is the inevitable endgame in an ongoing arms race between major shared hosting firms, who have been super-sizing the disk space and data transfer on their accounts for two years. Here's the larger question: Is this just a marketing gimmick; a bright shiny "UNLIMITED" bauble to dangle in front of small business folk? Or is it an effective way to attract customers from HostGator who find that 1,000 gigs of disk space is simply not enough? Almost nobody needs this, but some might be influenced by it.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3 months later, an upset Yahoo Exec was overheard saying,
Tis no man, tis a remorseless eating machine.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
They already are moving into this area.
What do you think they're building all those shiny new datacenters for?
I know that many people might be attracted to Yahoo! hosting being reliable for uptime (as per http://www.webhostingstuff.com/uptime/YahooWebHosting.html), as it is close to 100%... I know from experience from other hosting providers that this is not the case with several others.
Not unlimited at all.... they just redefine unlimited.
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/smallbusiness/Lwebhosting/home/bb/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/unlimited/
This won't meet the needs of large businesses.
not even remotely.
And these are -explicitly- shared hosting accounts, and there are some restrictions - including how quickly you can grow your disk usage, and if you are using too much bandwidth you'll be flagged. Another is that they explicitly are saying that it's not to be used as a datawarehousing resource.
All things that a large business is going to want to do.
So, is this unlimited, or "Comcast Unlimited (TM)"?
Yahoo's service has been going downhill for years, and now Microsoft is going to be running things. I can imagine some arbitrary restrictions, or "random" failures, that makes this service not so great. Unlimited bandwidth is nice, but if your pages take 20 seconds to render because the download speed is 128K/s, or if it takes 1 week to upload 100 Gigs, it stops looking so good.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't tried this service, and it sounds great. I just wouldn't give my hopes up.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
The thing that annoys me about most hosting plans is that they scale up disk space and bandwith together--as if one inevitably follows the other. For example, I have a miniscule website that hosts a ~200 meg game download. So I need a whopping ~300 megs of disk space. But when I get a spike of downloads, I can hit several gigs of bandwith per day. But I would have to purchase additional "disk space" along with bandwidth if I were going with a traditional hosting plan.
Annoying.
expandfairuse.org
I just sent a recommendation to a very large site (daily peak bandwidth > 3Gb/s). I suggested that they drop in a
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I see an encrypted fuse device in my future......
Most small business sites will never use even 100gb of data. We offer shared hosting at ~$15/month for 200GB disk, 2tb bandwidth, and of our customers who use it, most could downgrade to cheaper accounts ($8? $4.50?) without a problem**. Yahoo knows this about its own customers, too, so this is likely a gimmick to give the impression of a "deal" while knowing most people won't actually consume much. Also note this quote from Yahoo's unlimited email FAQ: "The purpose of unlimited storage isn't to provide an online storage warehouse. Usage that suggests this approach gets flagged by Yahoo! Business Email's anti-abuse controls." Or, elsewhere in the help system:
OK. What exactly is that speed of growth?
(**Yes, I realize that some Arrow Bay customers are reading this. Check your disk and bandwidth usage: if it's always significantly under what you're paying for, consider downgrading to the next package for your next billing cycle. Seriously.)
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
The obvious answer is traffic shaping. They'll let you store as much as you want! And you transfer as much to them or from them as the connection can handle! Too bad you only get a 56k.
Somebody sign up, throw up a few DVD ISOs, and link to them from Slashdot. We'll soon see how "unlimited" it is...
Let's see how long this will last if people start Web 2.0 storage sharing sites up there. They probably have deduplication and compression but that won't help if/when people put HD videos up there.
Those TOS are temporary until MS takes over anyway.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I think there is something missing within their service terms, like numbers. Okay, so you might not be able to grow as fast you want, well, before I sign on the dotted line, how fast CAN I grow?What happens to people who exceed this amount? Bounce to a higher rate plan, get charged extra for the extra growth?
I think Yahoo is just the latest company to cash in on the "hidden a-la-carte" fee structure. Just like cell phone plans, "Free checking" and just about every other "flat rate service", you can no longer tell in advance what you are going to get charged for something, and every time you tear open a bill, you know there is a good chance that it is going to be 50% higher than the month before because of some obscure item buried deep in the fine print.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Thanks for finding the "gotchas".
I try my best with my own modest server, but $12 a month? I'll bite, Yahoo will you host it?
Heh. "Unlimited bandwidth", but if you use "too much" you'll be "flagged". IOW, Yahoo! has just joined the long-tradition of "unlimited" hosting services where "unlimited" means "we won't tell you up front what the limits are, but they sure exist, and you'll sure be nailed for breaking them."
Better off getting an account where the limits are disclosed, and you can pay to get them raised.
Hmm, maybe Microsoft will sign up for an account and try to ruin Yahoo so their stock tanks and they can buy them cheaper?
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
I, as an owner of a small business, would like to archive everything hosted on the entire internet. So 600 petabytes is included in that "unlimited" figure right?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
This sounds a lot like Simplenet from the late 90s. They provided you with a sub-domain and unlimited hosting and bandwith for about the same price.
Then a couple of sites got popular, and started causing problems for the servers.
That's when Simplenet sent e-mail messages to the "top users" and informed them they would be automatically moved to a new plan as they had qualified for an addendum in the Terms of Service. An addendum that was put out moments before the e-mail message was sent.
All I remember is a lot of people jumping ship, just out of spite. I hope Yahoo! has a better idea of what they're getting into.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Storage space has been a big issue of contention on Dreamhost as well. I signed up for their service, feeling happy that I had 500G of remote storage to use as I pleased. It turned out it wasn't that simple.
Unlimited sounds great, until you start using a large amount of space and Yahoo has to find some reason to say that you're not complying with their terms of service.
I had webhosting with Yahoo once. I was amazed at the fact that their control panel used to manage your account was so unfriendly and unintuitive. They make you go through hoops that even the smallest hosting reller offering Cpanel or Plesk doesn't do.
Add all the disk space and bandwidth you want, but until you fix the real problems, "control panel and terrible customer service" it won't matter.
RTFG - Read The F#$%ing Google!
The company that came on and said 40 hours a week peek-time. Unlimited off-peak. Then several months later declared "Unlimited".
;-)
And we've never gone back. Dial-up pretty much was forced away from a per hour rate to a flat $20 fee for unlimited. And the whole industry was moved to a $15-$25 price point.
Wasn't until broadband came around that prices were able to be raised again.
It's not always an impossible thing...
Exactly :)
You get what you pay for, and in this case, you get a home broadband style "unlimited", where you won't know what your limits really are until you hit them.
Gotta love it.
NOT
is give companies certantity over their monthly costs while ensuring they can grow without hitting limits and needing to move their sites or pay much higher fees; as well as ensure acess to their sites without hitting monthly limits and paying more or getting cut off. For many smaller businesses that's a good deal - they aren't going to "grow too fast" or violate the TOS by using it as a data backup site or hosting massive files for download. Yahoo gets to attract more businesses to their services, spreading their large fixed costs over more customers and possibly migrating them to more expensive services as their needs grow beyond the small business model. They may even find a way to host adds preferentialy over say Google and others.
/. viewpoint; Yahoo probably doesn't care about the handful of customers that will try to game their offer by hosting large amounts of files, etc - they'll just cut them off under the TOS and be done with them.
Despite the
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I think Microsoft's sphincter just imploded.
Didn't they just figure out a few months ago how to bump up Hotmail storage up from 2 MB? (And still no IMAP or POP for free?)
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
As someone who works in the hosting industry; prehaps my view is a little bias - however..
Joe Blogs may find this useful; someone running a high-profile blog or creative commons music download site -- but businesses want someone on the phone, someone who can explain whats happened to their email (blocked as spam, not getting to person X who's misconfigured their mail server, etc), why their PHP form isn't working as expected, how to configure outlook - etc.
Businesses want someone they can hold accountable - and they want an instant response. What they don't want is a faceless company that directs you to the relevant help page/tutorial in the first reply and makes you wait 24 hours before your followup support ticket is replied to.
A good hosting company gains and retains their reputation not just through reliability and quantity - but through quality technical support.
We may not offer crazy levels of storage or bandwidth per month ; but a good chunk of our business comes through referals from word of mouth after they've had the pleasure of dealing with our support or sales people.
If Yahoo managed to offer this -and- offer 'unlimited' space/bandwidth; then I'd be worried. I'm sure plenty of other people will handle the obvious arguments regarding 'unlimited' though.
My host is dreamhost. Their uptime is also listed as 99.99% ( http://www.webhostingstuff.com/uptime/DreamHost.html ).
From experience, this is not the case. For example, the site says that they had 100% uptime in January of this year. On their own status page ( http://www.dreamhoststatus.com/ ) they show several outages for January. There was one night in January where some DH routers had issues and the Web servers and MySQL servers could not communicate. Any web site which did not require MySQL was fine, but those that did require it were not working.
There was also a couple DNS outages late last year, in which all websites that used DH's DNS were down (web servers were fine, its the DNS servers that were not).
I'm not complaining about DH, as they are fantastic compared to 1and1, who I was with before. I'm just saying that I don't believe 99.99% uptime is accurate for DH (it may be accurate for Yahoo!), and 100% for the past 6 months is incorrect.
Also looking at the site for 1and1 ( http://www.webhostingstuff.com/uptime/11InternetInc.html ), I know those numbers are not correct. I left 1and1 after my site had daily outages in March/April 07.
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
...of my "Unix Programmers's Manual" circa 1983 from Bell Laboratories where they say something along the lines of ... "Filenames can be infinite in length (where infinity is set to 255 characters)..."
Simple solution! Redefine "Unlimited".
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Somebody should tag this article "misleading". If you have limis, it is not "All-You-Can-Eat".
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Unlimited storage? Let's see how well they handle this file:
/dev/zero >> unlimited.file.my.ass
# cat
The more that I think about it, batch processing would be more effective for me. I dont mind waiting for the commands to process, just as long as I have a reasonable access to my data.
SSH would be overkill... batch processing to shove it to a HTTPS session would be more effective.
1. Yahoo isn't the smartest kid on the block, but they aren't *that* dumb. Nobody with a vague clue offers "unlimited" bandwidth or storage. And Yahoo has a vague clue.
2. Isn't it funny that they did this right after the Microsoft takeover offer?
It's possible that this was already in the works and has nothing to do with MS. But it's just so self-evidently stupid that I wonder if senior executives were involved. What's the strategic angle? Do they now accept an MS takeover as inevitable, and want to discredit MS as much as possible post-takeover (because it will be MSHoo, not Yahoo, who gets sued over the "unlimited" claims)? Or are they hoping to attract so many unprofitable bandwidth leeches that their service becomes undesirable and MS loses interest? Or is there a more subtle angle to this?
-Graham
Firstly; you suck -- I was caught by your logout thing twice in a row before I had to pay enough attention to work out what was going on ;P
As for a real reply; you'll be looking for a UML/VPS. NO shared hosting provider worth their salt is going to give you proper SSH access. If they do; I'd not go within a nautical mile of them.
A cheap virtual server will offer you limited memory/cpu/disk usage and your own root enviroment -- they go for anything from about 10 bucks a month upwards.
Mr Guo? does he get unlimited bandwidth and storage?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
heh.
Oh, your going to buy us? thats great, here's the keys. BTW, we have ten million people using unlimited bandwidth and storage. Good luck.
The next day every geek int he land is putting up and pulling off 10s of gigs of files.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Keep in mind that Yahoo can deliver unlimited bandwidth much cheaper than a hosting company can. You have to keep in mind that Yahoo has an expansive network and they are doing settlement-free peering with all of the Tier 1 ISP's, as well as anyone else who happens to be hooked up to a common peering point. Hell, even at our regional hosting center we're connected to a peering point and we peer directly with Yahoo, bypassing the Internet.
The point is that all that bandwidth doesn't cost Yahoo nearly as much as a traditional hosting provider would have to pay for it.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Mirror all the text pr0n in usenet!
Kevin Smith on Prince
I've been using Yahoo webhosting for years and the service is just okay, but I don't ask for very much anyway. So the new plan is actually a significant savings for me and now if I want to place some big multimedia files on my site, I don't have to watch out for bandwidth usage if it gets linked to someone's MySpace account.
As for a Microsoft buyout, I'll just wait and see. I've stuck with Yahoo mainly because they make a lot of routine things simple and relatively easy. And when I first signed up, I felt like Yahoo was likely to be around a lot longer than Joe's Fast Web Hosting Service.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Unlimited = no limits to how many arbitrary "constraints" Yahoo may place on the customer.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
How much is that in Libraries of Congress?
And these are -explicitly- shared hosting accounts, and there are some restrictions - including how quickly you can grow your disk usage, and if you are using too much bandwidth you'll be flagged. Another is that they explicitly are saying that it's not to be used as a datawarehousing resource.
Um, ok, what CAN you do with it?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/unlimited/
Lots of disclaimers. No hard numbers. Definitely nothing to do with unlimited.
How about a new law:
Just like food sold must include a list of incgredients, fat content, etc
so should certain groups of products have to include a list of guaranted minimum quantities offered, or your money back
Any advert that references these quantities, in the form of "unlimited", "up to 100 gb" "up to 500% faster" etc.
would have to disclose the minima too.
Companies would still be free to promise the sky. But since they would need to at least define a guaranted lower bound, customers would knew a number they could rely on, and compare products based on those.
What do you think they're building all those shiny new datacenters for? Heating? When I need to warm up my apartment, I just pull a 500Gb drive for a moment and then put it back in and warm up while my RAID 5 rebuilds.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
I was already looking into an online backup service (such as mozy.com) that would keep an off site backup of my files. Mozy has 'unlimited' storage too but only allows one person at a time to access the data. This would be great for mirroring files (such as class documents for students to access). Does anyone know a good way to use this service as an automatic backup? I'm thinking rsync if they support ssh or sftp. Is there OS X / unix backup software like Mozy's out there that will do this with any web host, or should I use a cron job?
I use DreamHost for that, and it is about $100/year, for 500GB.
I do host a tiny site on it, but nothing special, and not very big at all. (The good news is that you can't slashdot my webcams on there because DH provides a lot of transfer speed and size)
The main weakness of DH is the amazingly slow database stuff (at least when I used it with Gallery2), but you don't care about that.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Yeah, MySQL 4 also. That's the first thing I looked at, and I stopped looking after that. PHP 4? Come on...
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
Wow, that logout thing is interesting. That is a great example of why that stuff shouldn't work over a HTTP GET, but should instead require a HTTP PUT or POST. Imagine if you had a prefetch thing running, and that kept logging you out?
HTTP GET (or any other kind of retrieve action) shouldn't change the data, and should be repeatable.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
I'm also wondering if this would work as a super cheap reseller plan. Even if they didn't allow DNS bindings to go to different subdirectories of your account, you could set up the redirects/includes via PHP or .htaccess.
Then again, if yahoo flagged you for abuse, you'd have a lot of angry clients.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=unlimited&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
jred
I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
The 100$ a year plan is not a VPS. I need shell access (root is helpful :P). The cheapest VPS they offer is 135$, managed. I know how to use and admin a linux/BSD box, so I dont need hand-holding. I also dont need buku resources. 48MB ram, 10 gig disk, 30MHz CPU, 20gig bandwidth symmetric is good enough for me. Storage matters more than everything else (expect for bandwidth).
Most places restrict completely any sort of proxies or iptunnels, even if they are private (security for wifi access points).
That's exactly right. It's just like the Time Warner-as-ISP issue described in another article earlier this week. Once your usage crosses some unstated threshold, you've violated their Terms of Service and they can drop you like a republican presidential candidate.
It's $11.95 for ONE month - then they close up shop. So make the most of it.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I would like to take this opportunity to shill for my shared hosting provider, as a satisfied customer (I have not other relation with them). I was going to say that these guys offer $1 per G bandwidth, and $1 per Meg per month disk space, strictly on a pay-as-you-go basis. What was my hosting fees over the last year? I don't know, probably around $10 -> that's $7 for the domain name, and $3 for MySql, leaving a few cents for storage & bandwidth. I'm a very light user, and well, I'm working on getting more traffic/revenue etc, but it's a while yet. Ok, now I also have "unlimited account" email forwarding at $0.02 per day ie anything, ***@mysite.com gets forwarded.
So, at my most wasteful "always upsize setting", that's a whopping average spending per customer, I'm probably a big spender!). Can anyone beat that? That was before. Just now, I check their news pages, and found that the bandwidth costs have just been decreased (and check this out for those rational-minded ones out there) on a log scale!
I quote
These discounts aren't monthly or anything; the more you transfer, the cheaper your service gets, no matter how long it takes. It's also permanent for the life of your bandwidth accountIt would help if you were more clear about exactly what you need.
I've been pretty much buried in Amazon's AWS stack for awhile now, so a part of me wants to say... If you just need storage, go with S3. It's pay-as-you-go, absurdly simple file storage that happens to be done over http(s). Can be private, or can be on the public Internet.
It's the 30 mhz figure that makes me wonder. If you need to do a batch job very occasionally, and you don't care how long you wait, you could always prepare an ec2 image, and bring the instance up on demand. Costs 10 cents/hour, which means it's a bit expensive to leave on all the time, but if you only leave it up for an hour a day, that's $3/mo. When you shut it down, all data is lost... unless you persisted it to S3.
Or, yeah, what other people are suggesting, if you're wanting a mailserver or something.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
So, are we talking Comcast "Unlimited" or Verizon "Unlimited"?
And if I was in management at Microsfot, I would quickly suggest we move all our hosting to Yahoo cause it's waaaaay cheaper. Wait....
So basically its the new paid version of Geocities?
Oh well, I guess at least for the next month or so before people start being told that there actually are bandwidth limits, every torrent in the world will have like an extra 5 web-hosts...
obviously it's gonna have a clause that says no illegal activities, but you know people would try anyway...
They can afford to do this with businesses because they assume they won't be useing lots and lots of P2P, they might even have a throttling clause in there somewhere. Fine print anyone?
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
Looks like we just solved W3C's problem.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Maybe you could use a search engine. Like, say... Yahoo.com.
Here you go, you can drink an unlimited amount of our beer, just as long as you drink it through this measly little straw. ...no thanks Yahoo.
Now if it were really unlimited, I have a site that I'd like to host, I wonder what their TOS says about Porn and Bittorrent trackers
: )
That will show them 'unlimited'...
fsckr.com - go fusk yourself!
I'd just like a few of those unlimited hard drives they are using
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
I have 2.5TB of storage. Let's see...
1. Sign up for Yahoo hosting
2. Truecrypt the drives into 10GB pieces
3. Create a very basic index.html that links to those file - now those files are not data storage, they are web content.
4. Upload.
5. Upload more.
6. Upload backups.
7. Upload the archives from CD/DVD
8. When Yahoo shuts me down, sue as I only uploaded web content.
My favorite example of "unlimited" is Verizon's EV-DO broadband, where "unlimited" original meant 5GB/month and then they just turned off your service; and now it means 5GB/month and then we throttle your speed down to a max of 100Kbps/100Kbps, and might still cut you off.
-- Aaron
That's not the main reason to change it. As of February 1st, PHP4 is dead. It would be just about time to rewrite the code to PHP5, as there will be no more security updates after August 8th. Then it's really dead.
I run OpenBSD on my mini. It took a hour of 'remote hands' time to install ($20) and then just worked. Actually, that's not quite true. About a year later the hard drive died and Apple refused to honour their warranty responsibilities. The hosting company replaced the drive for me from a third party supplier at their own expense (only about $100, and almost certainly less than the profit they've made from me, but that kind of service is why I've found it very hard to go elsewhere).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Indeed, offering unlimited bandwidth puts the provider in a position similar to that of an insurer, with a high bandwidth user equivalent to a customer who causes insurance losses. Thus, for such a scheme to work, they need to have low loss coverage costs and broad risk distribution. As has been pointed out above, Yahoo can probably achieve the former; they are also in a much better position for the latter -- they have marketing channels through which they can reach a lot of average customers. Compare this to a small provider whose unlimited hosting package might end up attracting mainly users who got kicked out of their last "unlimited" plan.
OT, but I couldn't find on your site (and your username doesn't have any contact info)... do you have any plans for data warehousing? I've got about 40GB that I'm rsyncing (the daily diff is usually a few meg, a few hundred when we dump images from our product pics) around, but I'd like a place to shove it offsite. It seems that the only plans available to meet my needs are dedicated root servers - just so I can run rsyncd. I'm not going to host a site from the thing. What would you suggest for an offsite simple backbone/service/raid box (besides the one I have at home - my ISP doesn't like services on the wire, and they're the only game in town if they cancel my subscription)?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Oh, it's small, just a handshake and a bribe or two.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..