2 ms·
If the hardware is spending its cycles on your workload, then it definitely makes it a reasonable choice. Its not like they can sell those cycles to someone els
by jlawer 13y ago
If the hardware is spending its cycles on your workload, then it definitely makes it a reasonable choice. Its not like they can sell those cycles to someone else until your job is done.
Besides we are not talking about a high margin business here. $5 vms when most providers are charging 4x times that. Its not unreasonable to expect that your going to have to pay for extras. Similar to a budget airline, you get what you pay for. You want a service that includes that cost in your other fees... then use AWS, rackspace or one of the 1000s of others.
- vacri 13y agoThe basic offerings should be secure. You shouldn't have to know what all the bits and pieces of a custom interface mean before you start using a service in order to use it safely. Seriously, there should not be an option "Shall we pass your latent information onto the next user?" left active by default. If people want to save that trivial amount of money, then let them turn off safety themselves.
- amalag 13y agoIf you care about your information I think you should also take responsibility for it. I can't see the point about blaming others for their defaults, it is made quite clear when you destroy a droplet.
- vacri 13y agoHrm, I should also add that for a $5/month VM, 10 minutes of time is worth $0.0012. And that 10 minutes doesn't require the RAM or CPU component, just the SSD, so it's much cheaper than that in actuality. It's silly to squabble over pricing that low. It would take a million destroyed VMs (at list price) for the cost to be much more than what's in the office's petty cash box, and it's worth it for the security implications, not to mention PR.