> I'm not sure who is to blame at this point -- is it the fault of the individual for not understanding uptime? is it the fault of the service for not articulat

> I'm not sure who is to blame at this point -- is it the fault of the individual for not understanding uptime? is it the fault of the service for not articulating clearly what it means? Is it the fault of the industry for inculcating an unjustified sense of entitlement? I'm inclined to lean towards the third option. It ought to be obvious that there is no such thing as a perfect host, that in the limit your probability of being down at some point goes to 100% as your time hosted with a company increases. There's just a lot of entitlement and sloppy thinking out there. People believe that their $30 a month hosting ought to be magically invulnerable in ways it by the simple laws of physics cannot be. If you didn't explicitly choose to have multiple geographically separate hosts with a fail-over plan between them, then you were at the very least implicitly accepting that you were going to be down some of the time when (not if) your only host goes down. That's a fine and ok thing to choose, but I don't think you get to be mad at your host because you didn't clue in to the choice you were making.