3 ms·
Yes, Amazon is to blame here as well. They shouldn't have offered unlimited service. At the same time, I don't get, why would you encrypt your "Linux ISO's"? L
by vitalysh 9y ago
Yes, Amazon is to blame here as well. They shouldn't have offered unlimited service.
At the same time, I don't get, why would you encrypt your "Linux ISO's"? Let the AWS dedup do its job, don't abuse it, and everyone is happy.
- cf 9y agoI don't get why if they don't mean unlimited just say up to 20TB/mo.
- chc 9y agoPossibly because there actually wasn't any limit. Maybe if a handful people were exceeding $LOTS TB, they don't care, but if 60% of users exceed $LOTS TB, the service becomes unsustainable. In this case, the service really is unlimited (there genuinely is no limit that you're not allowed to go over), and if you wanted that effect, advertising a limit would be net negative — a high limit would encourage the "too many users use a lot" case and lead to the same result we get now where the plan has to be canceled for unsustainability, and a low limit would defeat the purpose.
- unixhero 9y agoBecause it isn't linux iso's.
- nimchimpsky 9y agowere they being serious, I can't tell.