@bakageta said:
I mean, seemed to answer it to me, not logging in for a week and a half is definitely not going to get someone's tag removed.
Agreed - but.... how about bots, @virmach has not said anything or done anything (publicly) that I am aware of. Multiple nodes being down and no status updates for over a month is that reasonable?
There are times when a provider needs a kick (does not need to be a permanent removal of tag) unless problems persist.
it doesnt matter to him. when's the last time he made an offer?
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
@bakageta said:
I mean, seemed to answer it to me, not logging in for a week and a half is definitely not going to get someone's tag removed.
Agreed - but.... how about bots, @virmach has not said anything or done anything (publicly) that I am aware of. Multiple nodes being down and no status updates for over a month is that reasonable?
There are times when a provider needs a kick (does not need to be a permanent removal of tag) unless problems persist.
it doesnt matter to him. when's the last time he made an offer?
@bakageta said:
I mean, seemed to answer it to me, not logging in for a week and a half is definitely not going to get someone's tag removed.
Agreed - but.... how about bots, @virmach has not said anything or done anything (publicly) that I am aware of. Multiple nodes being down and no status updates for over a month is that reasonable?
There are times when a provider needs a kick (does not need to be a permanent removal of tag) unless problems persist.
it doesnt matter to him. when's the last time he made an offer?
@bakageta said:
I mean, seemed to answer it to me, not logging in for a week and a half is definitely not going to get someone's tag removed.
Agreed - but.... how about bots, @virmach has not said anything or done anything (publicly) that I am aware of. Multiple nodes being down and no status updates for over a month is that reasonable?
There are times when a provider needs a kick (does not need to be a permanent removal of tag) unless problems persist.
My thoughts aloud:
it doesnt matter to him. when's the last time he made an offer?
Probably, but still, a fraudulent provider should not have a provider tag. On the other hand, apart from frauds and other means of braking the forum rules, a provider should not have their tag removed (without a very good reason).
Virmach has been... let's say "colourful" from the very start if memory serves me (correct me if I'm wrong).
Some LESbians are happy with what they are getting for the money, some are not.
There are no hard rules regarding service quality or representative's forum activity for that matter (or else we would need to remove Hetzner's provider tag too, right?).
Having said all this, Virmach is definitely pushing it.
@bikegremlin said:
My thoughts aloud:
Probably, but still, a fraudulent provider should not have a provider tag. On the other hand, apart from frauds and other means of braking the forum rules, a provider should not have their tag removed (without a very good reason).
If that logic holds water, then technically any host using ColoCrossing shouldn’t be banned either, they’ve "yet to scam" anyone, after all.
The move to block CC-based providers but keep others offering the same "quality" of service feels less about customer protection and more about trying to say, “we’re not LET.”
@bikegremlin said:
Virmach has been... let's say "colourful" from the very start if memory serves me (correct me if I'm wrong).
Some LESbians are happy with what they are getting for the money, some are not.
There are no hard rules regarding service quality or representative's forum activity for that matter (or else we would need to remove Hetzner's provider tag too, right?).
Exactly! If Hetzner’s legendary silence toward customers doesn’t disqualify them, then it’s only fair to apply the same standards elsewhere. Otherwise, LES starts looking a little more like LET than we’d like to admit...
@bikegremlin said:
Having said all this, Virmach is definitely pushing it.
That is the point.
That’s fair, but also kind of the point.
I get your concern though. @VirMach is likely a one-man show. If he disappears (hospitalized, arrested, broke, or—hopefully not—dead), customers would have zero idea what’s happening. Same goes if the company suddenly folds.
So yeah, it’s messy, but that’s the gamble with solo-run providers. You either get a personal touch… or total radio silence...
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
@cybertech said:
look guys, he'll be back when he's back and then extend the services as compensation for the downtimes. just in time for 2025 sales. rinse and repeat
at this point it's definitely your choice and responsibility whether to get those deals
I wish people were as optimistic about life as you are about @VirMach.
I bet if your girlfriend/boyfriend forgot your anniversary, you’d still be happy, saying, "Perfect! Now I get to surprise you with our anniversary gift!"
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
@cybertech said:
look guys, he'll be back when he's back and then extend the services as compensation for the downtimes. just in time for 2025 sales. rinse and repeat
at this point it's definitely your choice and responsibility whether to get those deals
I wish people were as optimistic about life as you are about @VirMach.
I bet if your girlfriend/boyfriend forgot your anniversary, you’d still be happy, saying, "Perfect! Now I get to surprise you with our anniversary gift!"
i mean it is what it is. expectations breed disappointment.
if virmach vps is like dating, then know for sure marriage aint on the table.
but yes he'll be back with your anni gift.
im still benching the free tokyo vps which i can never put into production.
@somik said: I get your concern though. @VirMach is likely a one-man show. If he disappears (hospitalized, arrested, broke, or—hopefully not—dead), customers would have zero idea what’s happening. Same goes if the company suddenly folds.
So yeah, it’s messy, but that’s the gamble with solo-run providers. You either get a personal touch… or total radio silence...
Agreed - There has to be limits and imho @VirMach exceeds those limits and repeats them.
For me this started because of the ridiculous downtime without any updates or notifications. At least the other providers mentioned tend to provide updates in some shape or form, not necessarily via LES.
I feel the provider tag deserves to be withdrawn when a provider (whoever they are) fails to communicate over a period of time. Two of my VMs are down (both on AMSD018 for six weeks). Other users I believe have been down longer. There should be limits and for me 4 weeks is the cutoff when there has been no communication.
@bikegremlin said:
My thoughts aloud:
Probably, but still, a fraudulent provider should not have a provider tag. On the other hand, apart from frauds and other means of braking the forum rules, a provider should not have their tag removed (without a very good reason).
If that logic holds water, then technically any host using ColoCrossing shouldn’t be banned either, they’ve "yet to scam" anyone, after all.
For reasons beaten to death, we've decided to draw the line at CC.
I think that was (is) a good call.
The move to block CC-based providers but keep others offering the same "quality" of service feels less about customer protection and more about trying to say, “we’re not LET.”
I think it was right to draw the line there.
Same goes for a certain purple hosting provider.
We may disagree on where the line should be drawn, that's one thing.
No way to please everyone there.
Policing VS offer prices and amount of them VS quality - all contradicting criteria and it boils down to finding the ballance (and, again, no way to please everyone).
Another thing is discussing whether a line should be drawn in the first place - seems like we both agree that it should.
@bikegremlin said:
Virmach has been... let's say "colourful" from the very start if memory serves me (correct me if I'm wrong).
Some LESbians are happy with what they are getting for the money, some are not.
There are no hard rules regarding service quality or representative's forum activity for that matter (or else we would need to remove Hetzner's provider tag too, right?).
Exactly! If Hetzner’s legendary silence toward customers doesn’t disqualify them, then it’s only fair to apply the same standards elsewhere. Otherwise, LES starts looking a little more like LET than we’d like to admit...
@bikegremlin said:
Having said all this, Virmach is definitely pushing it.
That is the point.
That’s fair, but also kind of the point.
I get your concern though. @VirMach is likely a one-man show. If he disappears (hospitalized, arrested, broke, or—hopefully not—dead), customers would have zero idea what’s happening. Same goes if the company suddenly folds.
So yeah, it’s messy, but that’s the gamble with solo-run providers. You either get a personal touch… or total radio silence...
As far as I can see: Virmach is what it is, and that has been discussed a lot here.
No secrets.
With LES being a buyer beware market (as opposed to handholding and babysitting), it may be fair to say that customers can be angry at themselves - it was their choice and call.
Of course, there should be a line, and taking money without providing service is a fraud. I'm just not sure where to draw the line in those terms. A long downtime vs no service at all - it does differ, though past a certain point, it is just a distinction without a real difference for the customers. Doesn't look like a clear-cut case to me. Doesn't look good either - but it's been that way practicaly since the start (correct me if I'm wrong).
@bikegremlin said:
My thoughts aloud:
Probably, but still, a fraudulent provider should not have a provider tag. On the other hand, apart from frauds and other means of braking the forum rules, a provider should not have their tag removed (without a very good reason).
If that logic holds water, then technically any host using ColoCrossing shouldn’t be banned either, they’ve "yet to scam" anyone, after all.
For reasons beaten to death, we've decided to draw the line at CC.
I think that was (is) a good call.
And before anyone asks, I agree with @bikegremlin here. DCs that are heavily used/abused by scammers, and still don't bother to verify their resellers info, should be barred.
@bikegremlin said:
Of course, there should be a line, and taking money without providing service is a fraud. I'm just not sure where to draw the line in those terms. A long downtime vs no service at all - it does differ, though past a certain point, it is just a distinction without a real difference for the customers. Doesn't look like a clear-cut case to me. Doesn't look good either - but it's been that way practicaly since the start (correct me if I'm wrong).
No, you are right there. No communication + dissappear + all servers down + main site down, then it's clear that it's a scam. But since some servers are up, some are down, some come back online before going offline again... makes it murky...
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
This isn't the first time VirMach has gone missing—this time it's been less than two weeks, but I recall him disappearing for much longer periods before.
If his provider tag is suspended or revoked over this, I suspect he might use it as an excuse to never return.
FYI: VirMach vanished from LET over three years ago, yet still retains the “Patron Provider” tag to this day.
So all a provider needs to do to maintain their tag is login (and do bugger all) - stupid.
There has to be a line drawn where node down for X period without any view to fixing means suspend tag.
All the provider needs to do is say (somewhere) what and when things are happening to avoid the suspension.
I don't want to load the mods with any extra work but there should be a standard rule for this. The provider is not providing, so suspend. To avoid issues this must be node related NOT user related.
1 month is (I believe) a very reasonable period.
Creating the rule would also raise the quality of the provider tag on LES. It would also encourage providers to monitor the forum more often etc.
@msatt said:
So all a provider needs to do to maintain their tag is login (and do bugger all) - stupid.
There has to be a line drawn where node down for X period without any view to fixing means suspend tag.
All the provider needs to do is say (somewhere) what and when things are happening to avoid the suspension.
I don't want to load the mods with any extra work but there should be a standard rule for this. The provider is not providing, so suspend. To avoid issues this must be node related NOT user related.
1 month is (I believe) a very reasonable period.
Creating the rule would also raise the quality of the provider tag on LES. It would also encourage providers to monitor the forum more often etc.
Those are some suggestions to consider.
Note: we must all be aware of the fact that we can't force providers to offer the quality of service that we require - we can only choose which providers' services we are using.
@msatt said:
So all a provider needs to do to maintain their tag is login (and do bugger all) - stupid.
There has to be a line drawn where node down for X period without any view to fixing means suspend tag.
All the provider needs to do is say (somewhere) what and when things are happening to avoid the suspension.
I don't want to load the mods with any extra work but there should be a standard rule for this. The provider is not providing, so suspend. To avoid issues this must be node related NOT user related.
1 month is (I believe) a very reasonable period.
Creating the rule would also raise the quality of the provider tag on LES. It would also encourage providers to monitor the forum more often etc.
You wanna create rules for new providers, fine. That makes some sense since we don't have any historical data to judge them by. When you've got years of history to judge from why remove the ability to use that data. Note that I completely agree with you that it should be as you say re: communication. I personally am having a hard time making a decision about renewing some services because he's sitting right on my own personal pivot point. But that's my decision to make.
@bikegremlin said: Note: we must all be aware of the fact that we can't force providers to offer the quality of service that we require - we can only choose which providers' services we are using.
^^^ People that have bought Virmach either a) did so knowingly and accepted the risk, or b) are in the process of learning a valuable lesson about doing research on vendors.
@skorous said: ^^^ People that have bought Virmach either a) did so knowingly and accepted the risk, or b) are in the process of learning a valuable lesson about doing research on vendors.
I was aware of the risks (been around long enough), but there has to be a point where things become unacceptable.
You certainly make a fair point about rules for new providers but really why should a poor provider be allowed to continue just because they are 'old'.
We all want LES to be a place with quality providers (which we do have) however quality needs to be maintained otherwise suspend until quality returns.
@skorous said: ^^^ People that have bought Virmach either a) did so knowingly and accepted the risk, or b) are in the process of learning a valuable lesson about doing research on vendors.
I was aware of the risks (been around long enough), but there has to be a point where things become unacceptable.
You certainly make a fair point about rules for new providers but really why should a poor provider be allowed to continue just because they are 'old'.
We all want LES to be a place with quality providers (which we do have) however quality needs to be maintained otherwise suspend until quality returns.
This is the Low End - so while high quality is an admirable goal to strive for, many customers and providers are quite happy with less than perfect quality at bargain prices.
You can show up to a Sunday league match and expect the game to not be rigged - but you can't expect all the players to be sober.
@msatt said: I was aware of the risks (been around long enough), but there has to be a point where things become unacceptable.
Unacceptable for you is easy - vote with your wallet. Unacceptable for for everyone is a much higher bar to clear and for which - in my opinion at least - you have to consider the history which you want to take out of the equation.
@msatt said: You certainly make a fair point about rules for new providers but really why should a poor provider be allowed to continue just because they are 'old'.
You like to use terms like "poor" which are value judgements made by an individual but you use them as if they're universally accepted.
@bikegremlin said: We all want LES to be a place with quality providers
Which quality are you looking for? I'm not sure it's the same ones I'm looking for.
@bikegremlin said: This is the Low End - so while high quality is an admirable goal to strive for, many customers and providers are quite happy with less than perfect quality at bargain prices.
Low End should not equate to Low quality, it should be acceptable quality which (I consider) has a set threshold.
@skorous said: Unacceptable for you is easy - vote with your wallet. Unacceptable for for everyone is a much higher bar to clear and for which - in my opinion at least - you have to consider the history which you want to take out of the equation.
Again fair points - I am voting 'with my feet' e.g. 6 VMs cancelled so far.
Yes we know the history, but that does not give the provider the right to keep on providing no service. How do we know that history will keep on repeating. As you said -
@VirMach is likely a one-man show. If he disappears (hospitalized, arrested, broke, or—hopefully not—dead), customers would have zero idea what’s happening. Same goes if the company suddenly folds.
@skorous said: You like to use terms like "poor" which are value judgements made by an individual but you use them as if they're universally accepted.
I can only express using my own values not anyone else and virmach is a provider not providing a service - you certainly can't say that is good.
@bikegremlin said: This is the Low End - so while high quality is an admirable goal to strive for, many customers and providers are quite happy with less than perfect quality at bargain prices.
Low End should not equate to Low quality, it should be acceptable quality which (I consider) has a set threshold.
That is a variable that depends on the customer, price, and the intended use. What may not be acceptable to you, may be to someone else.
We encourage feedback and reviews (so all the LESbians know what kind of service to expect), but we don't enforce high quality - we just try to filter any frauds as much as possible.
@bikegremlin said: We encourage feedback and reviews (so all the LESbians know what kind of service to expect), but we don't enforce high quality - we just try to filter any frauds as much as possible.
To use @somik comments - high quality is a value judgement.
You used 'high' I used 'acceptable'. My comment still stands a provider should provide and when this fails there should be some action. I am saying provide and not mentioning quality. A node being offline for more than a month without any notification or updates is certainly not (in my opinion) a provider providing.
I think everyone understands (not necessarily agrees) my views and obviously this thread does act as 'history'. But my opinion is unchanged, there should be an acceptable level of service from a provider and there should be consequences where and when possible.
@msatt said: Low End should not equate to Low quality, it should be acceptable quality which (I consider) has a set threshold.
Again, "you consider". It's good you've got definite opinions on these things. Just be sure to note that they're opinions.
@msatt said: I can only express using my own values not anyone else and virmach is a provider not providing a service - you certainly can't say that is good.
Focusing on that specific statement "provider not providing a service" - then I have little doubt we can all agree. If you're saying the service as a whole is not good then I'm afraid you're wrong using my value judgements.
@skorous said: Focusing on that specific statement "provider not providing a service" - then I have little doubt we can all agree. If you're saying the service as a whole is not good then I'm afraid you're wrong using my value judgements.
Glad we can agree on something ;-)
I am certainly not and never meant to imply that the service as a whole is not good. I have servers that have been up almost a year so certainly not complaining. Yes I am complaining about the provider not providing.
@skorous said: Again, "you consider". It's good you've got definite opinions on these things. Just be sure to note that they're opinions.
I keep on saying my opinions and you have yours, which I am not contradicting. Just because mine may not be in alignment with yours (or anyone else) does not mean my opinions are wrong (or right). The purpose of this thread is moan, praise, chit chat and that is what I am doing.
However, I believe we can start by establishing easily quantifiable systems.
For instance, to retain provider tag, providers should be required to post in the forum weekly/monthly/quarterly/annually to indicate they are still supplying.
While this may not solve the problem, at least we can confirm the provider hasn't (physically) passed away.
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
@tulipyun said:
Poor quality does not equate to fraud.
However, I believe we can start by establishing easily quantifiable systems.
For instance, to retain provider tag, providers should be required to post in the forum weekly/monthly/quarterly/annually to indicate they are still supplying.
While this may not solve the problem, at least we can confirm the provider hasn't (physically) passed away.
That may sound good, but there are a few buts:
More rules does not improve stuff - it often just gets abused (people finding loopholes).
In a similar way our etiquette policy states "don't be a dick", provider tag policy is "don't be fraudulent."
Broad, but when "used" properly, I think it is best.
Adding more technicalities and boxes to tick won't improve anyone's service.
I will again use the example of Hetzner whose representative(s) don't post or efven log in to LES very often.
I'm still very happy with their service.
Comments
Last offer made was on December 2024:
https://lowendspirit.com/discussion/8865/virmach-2024-ryzen-nvme-hanukkah-sale-not-another-mystery-box-christmas-new-years/p1
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
yeah a year almost
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
You mean an offer we could not refuse ?
( Hello, Khartoum!! )
blog | exploring visually |
My thoughts aloud:
Probably, but still, a fraudulent provider should not have a provider tag. On the other hand, apart from frauds and other means of braking the forum rules, a provider should not have their tag removed (without a very good reason).
Virmach has been... let's say "colourful" from the very start if memory serves me (correct me if I'm wrong).
Some LESbians are happy with what they are getting for the money, some are not.
There are no hard rules regarding service quality or representative's forum activity for that matter (or else we would need to remove Hetzner's provider tag too, right?).
Having said all this, Virmach is definitely pushing it.
🔧 BikeGremlin guides & resources
Agreed and I will be doing the same.
Virmach is NOT worth the risk.
If that logic holds water, then technically any host using ColoCrossing shouldn’t be banned either, they’ve "yet to scam" anyone, after all.
The move to block CC-based providers but keep others offering the same "quality" of service feels less about customer protection and more about trying to say, “we’re not LET.”
Exactly! If Hetzner’s legendary silence toward customers doesn’t disqualify them, then it’s only fair to apply the same standards elsewhere. Otherwise, LES starts looking a little more like LET than we’d like to admit...
That is the point.
That’s fair, but also kind of the point.
I get your concern though. @VirMach is likely a one-man show. If he disappears (hospitalized, arrested, broke, or—hopefully not—dead), customers would have zero idea what’s happening. Same goes if the company suddenly folds.
So yeah, it’s messy, but that’s the gamble with solo-run providers. You either get a personal touch… or total radio silence...
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
look guys, he'll be back when he's back and then extend the services as compensation for the downtimes. just in time for 2025 sales. rinse and repeat
at this point it's definitely your choice and responsibility whether to get those deals
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
I wish people were as optimistic about life as you are about @VirMach.
I bet if your girlfriend/boyfriend forgot your anniversary, you’d still be happy, saying, "Perfect! Now I get to surprise you with our anniversary gift!"
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
i mean it is what it is. expectations breed disappointment.
if virmach vps is like dating, then know for sure marriage aint on the table.
but yes he'll be back with your anni gift.
im still benching the free tokyo vps which i can never put into production.
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
Agreed - There has to be limits and imho @VirMach exceeds those limits and repeats them.
For me this started because of the ridiculous downtime without any updates or notifications. At least the other providers mentioned tend to provide updates in some shape or form, not necessarily via LES.
I feel the provider tag deserves to be withdrawn when a provider (whoever they are) fails to communicate over a period of time. Two of my VMs are down (both on AMSD018 for six weeks). Other users I believe have been down longer. There should be limits and for me 4 weeks is the cutoff when there has been no communication.
Virmach should have his provider tag suspended.
Virmach is NOT worth the risk.
For reasons beaten to death, we've decided to draw the line at CC.
I think that was (is) a good call.
I think it was right to draw the line there.
Same goes for a certain purple hosting provider.
We may disagree on where the line should be drawn, that's one thing.
No way to please everyone there.
Policing VS offer prices and amount of them VS quality - all contradicting criteria and it boils down to finding the ballance (and, again, no way to please everyone).
Another thing is discussing whether a line should be drawn in the first place - seems like we both agree that it should.
As far as I can see: Virmach is what it is, and that has been discussed a lot here.
No secrets.
With LES being a buyer beware market (as opposed to handholding and babysitting), it may be fair to say that customers can be angry at themselves - it was their choice and call.
Of course, there should be a line, and taking money without providing service is a fraud. I'm just not sure where to draw the line in those terms. A long downtime vs no service at all - it does differ, though past a certain point, it is just a distinction without a real difference for the customers. Doesn't look like a clear-cut case to me. Doesn't look good either - but it's been that way practicaly since the start (correct me if I'm wrong).
Relja
🔧 BikeGremlin guides & resources
And before anyone asks, I agree with @bikegremlin here. DCs that are heavily used/abused by scammers, and still don't bother to verify their resellers info, should be barred.
No, you are right there. No communication + dissappear + all servers down + main site down, then it's clear that it's a scam. But since some servers are up, some are down, some come back online before going offline again... makes it murky...
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
This isn't the first time VirMach has gone missing—this time it's been less than two weeks, but I recall him disappearing for much longer periods before.
If his provider tag is suspended or revoked over this, I suspect he might use it as an excuse to never return.
FYI: VirMach vanished from LET over three years ago, yet still retains the “Patron Provider” tag to this day.
give him some time and space; he'll be back.
remember i said this in 2025
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
So all a provider needs to do to maintain their tag is login (and do bugger all) - stupid.
There has to be a line drawn where node down for X period without any view to fixing means suspend tag.
All the provider needs to do is say (somewhere) what and when things are happening to avoid the suspension.
I don't want to load the mods with any extra work but there should be a standard rule for this.
The provider is not providing, so suspend.
To avoid issues this must be node related NOT user related.
1 month is (I believe) a very reasonable period.
Creating the rule would also raise the quality of the provider tag on LES. It would also encourage providers to monitor the forum more often etc.
Virmach is NOT worth the risk.
Those are some suggestions to consider.
Note: we must all be aware of the fact that we can't force providers to offer the quality of service that we require - we can only choose which providers' services we are using.
🔧 BikeGremlin guides & resources
You wanna create rules for new providers, fine. That makes some sense since we don't have any historical data to judge them by. When you've got years of history to judge from why remove the ability to use that data. Note that I completely agree with you that it should be as you say re: communication. I personally am having a hard time making a decision about renewing some services because he's sitting right on my own personal pivot point. But that's my decision to make.
^^^ People that have bought Virmach either a) did so knowingly and accepted the risk, or b) are in the process of learning a valuable lesson about doing research on vendors.
I was aware of the risks (been around long enough), but there has to be a point where things become unacceptable.
You certainly make a fair point about rules for new providers but really why should a poor provider be allowed to continue just because they are 'old'.
We all want LES to be a place with quality providers (which we do have) however quality needs to be maintained otherwise suspend until quality returns.
Virmach is NOT worth the risk.
This is the Low End - so while high quality is an admirable goal to strive for, many customers and providers are quite happy with less than perfect quality at bargain prices.
You can show up to a Sunday league match and expect the game to not be rigged - but you can't expect all the players to be sober.
🔧 BikeGremlin guides & resources
Unacceptable for you is easy - vote with your wallet. Unacceptable for for everyone is a much higher bar to clear and for which - in my opinion at least - you have to consider the history which you want to take out of the equation.
You like to use terms like "poor" which are value judgements made by an individual but you use them as if they're universally accepted.
Which quality are you looking for? I'm not sure it's the same ones I'm looking for.
Fixed that quote - the text layout made it seem like I wrote it.
🔧 BikeGremlin guides & resources
Low End should not equate to Low quality, it should be acceptable quality which (I consider) has a set threshold.
Again fair points - I am voting 'with my feet' e.g. 6 VMs cancelled so far.
Yes we know the history, but that does not give the provider the right to keep on providing no service. How do we know that history will keep on repeating. As you said -
I can only express using my own values not anyone else and virmach is a provider not providing a service - you certainly can't say that is good.
Virmach is NOT worth the risk.
That is a variable that depends on the customer, price, and the intended use. What may not be acceptable to you, may be to someone else.
We encourage feedback and reviews (so all the LESbians know what kind of service to expect), but we don't enforce high quality - we just try to filter any frauds as much as possible.
🔧 BikeGremlin guides & resources
To use @somik comments - high quality is a value judgement.
You used 'high' I used 'acceptable'. My comment still stands a provider should provide and when this fails there should be some action. I am saying provide and not mentioning quality. A node being offline for more than a month without any notification or updates is certainly not (in my opinion) a provider providing.
I think everyone understands (not necessarily agrees) my views and obviously this thread does act as 'history'. But my opinion is unchanged, there should be an acceptable level of service from a provider and there should be consequences where and when possible.
Virmach is NOT worth the risk.
Again, "you consider". It's good you've got definite opinions on these things. Just be sure to note that they're opinions.
Focusing on that specific statement "provider not providing a service" - then I have little doubt we can all agree. If you're saying the service as a whole is not good then I'm afraid you're wrong using my value judgements.
Glad we can agree on something ;-)
I am certainly not and never meant to imply that the service as a whole is not good. I have servers that have been up almost a year so certainly not complaining. Yes I am complaining about the provider not providing.
I keep on saying my opinions and you have yours, which I am not contradicting. Just because mine may not be in alignment with yours (or anyone else) does not mean my opinions are wrong (or right). The purpose of this thread is moan, praise, chit chat and that is what I am doing.
Virmach is NOT worth the risk.
Poor quality does not equate to fraud.
However, I believe we can start by establishing easily quantifiable systems.
For instance, to retain provider tag, providers should be required to post in the forum weekly/monthly/quarterly/annually to indicate they are still supplying.
While this may not solve the problem, at least we can confirm the provider hasn't (physically) passed away.
Wow... a full on LowEnd debate is going on here!
It’s OK if you disagree with me. I can’t force you to be right!
IPv4: 32 bits of stress. IPv6: 128 bits of... well, more stress... Have anyone seen my subnet?
That may sound good, but there are a few buts:
More rules does not improve stuff - it often just gets abused (people finding loopholes).
In a similar way our etiquette policy states "don't be a dick", provider tag policy is "don't be fraudulent."
Broad, but when "used" properly, I think it is best.
Adding more technicalities and boxes to tick won't improve anyone's service.
I will again use the example of Hetzner whose representative(s) don't post or efven log in to LES very often.
I'm still very happy with their service.
🔧 BikeGremlin guides & resources