221–230 of 299 posts
I've said many, many times that the best thing you can do as a budding dev is to spin up a VPS somewhere and start hacking. A while ago, I started giving out VPSs to friends of mine to get them to stop making excuses about why they can't code. Digital ocean, at $5/mo, has made this really easy :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah noticed that as well. First thing I do is (on debian), update packages and the kernel, install ufw (allow only 22), fail2ban, postfix and logwatch. Then setup a non privileged user, sudo, turn of root ssh and password auth and move to key based auth. Then I can sleep/configure the rest of the system. Been meaning to package this all up in an ansible playbook but I can't be bothered :( I'd be using FreeBSD if the…
It took me about an hour to put all of this into an ansible playbook. I think there are couple of examples out on blogs about this as well. If there is interest I'll share my playbook. Writing this playbook paid off already for the second installation of the box.
Give us your address so we can send you money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DMCA prescribes a dispute policy, that allows the accused to refute the evidence provided by the accusers. I've seen numerous complaints indicating that Digital Ocean abides no such policies. http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean...
The dispute (counter-notice) and put-back procedures in the DMCA say that the provider can put the content back online if the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit within 14 days . I don't see anyone in that thread saying they violate this procedure; all I see is talk about some 48 hours limit, which is definitively not in the law.
Anyone have any citations for case law where virtualized hosting falls under 512(c), and doesn't qualify for safe harbor under 512(a)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you suggest that they would proceed, considering that the DMCA forces them to "expeditiously remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing material", on the contingent of being liable themselves for copyright infringement?
The DMCA prescribes a dispute policy, that allows the accused to refute the evidence provided by the accusers. I've seen numerous complaints indicating that Digital Ocean abides no such policies. http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean...
No, it doesn't.
The DMCA provides both a safe harbor for hosts against infringement liability (the take down notice procedure) and a safe harbor for hosts against any liability they might have for taking down content (the counter-notice procedure), but neither of these procedures are strictly mandatory, they just provide a liability shield for certain liabilities that the host may have had without them.
But most hosts have taken pains to assure that they have no liability in the latter case through terms of service, so there is little reason for them to be concerned with the counter-notice procedure.
I've said many, many times that the best thing you can do as a budding dev is to spin up a VPS somewhere and start hacking. A while ago, I started giving out VPSs to friends of mine to get them to stop making excuses about why they can't code. Digital ocean, at $5/mo, has made this really easy :)
Hey man what are some cool things that you recommend I try with a VPS :) ?
* Set up a static blog engine like Pelican [0]
* Learn Ansible [1]
* Try a distro you haven't used before
[0]: getpelican.com
[1]: http://sendgrid.com/blog/ansible-and-digital-ocean/ (although this really doesn't show off the power of something like Ansible)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dispute (counter-notice) and put-back procedures in the DMCA say that the provider can put the content back online if the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit within 14 days . I don't see anyone in that thread saying they violate this procedure; all I see is talk about some 48 hours limit, which is definitively not in the law.
Whoa! I didn't realize that virtual hosting providers fall under 512(c). I figured they'd apply 512(a) (conduit provider). Anyone have any citations for case law where virtualized hosting falls under 512(c), and doesn't qualify for safe harbor under 512(a)?
512(a) would apply to, say, an ISP that stood between a system hosting allegedly infringing content and those accessing it, not to the owner of the physical system hosting that content who allowed a third party to control a VM on the physical system on which the content was hosted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only story of relevance here is that Digital Ocean has a line in its TOS about not allowing "harassment or embarrassment", and they will enforce it if you do indeed harass a guy. I think you are missing the real relevance here; that DO will use their own discretion to determine if your content is worthy of dissemination. You're right, it was terrible journalism, and a thin story. So what of it? Why should DO co…
By accepting implicitly the facts presented by the article as facts , you are doing something called "privileging the hypothesis." Say, for example, that there's an article about a "scientific study", claiming some strong conclusion (e.g. "pig hair cures diabetes.") The article goes on to say that the study has one data-point and no control-group (which is to say, basically, that it's an anecdote.) To still even cons…
Or are they exercising editorial discretion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too have been bit by the droplet limit. $60 credit (but no credit card) in my account, wanted to spin up a fast box to build a kernel, but I was locked out of the larger droplets. Never did get a straight answer as to why, just a suggestion to link a credit card. Oh well.
There are two droplet limits, one is the number of droplets that you can spin up which you can see in your settings page: https://cloud.digitalocean.com/settings The second is if a customer signs up using Paypal we restrict some of the larger sizes, this is done to minimize the amount of fraud we have to deal with. Unfortunately we deal with a high amount of abusive and fraudulent signups so we've had to instate a lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you actually have evidence of this or is this an off the cuff statement? Having worked for some big hosts myself, i know how hard it can be to make changes once you have people using your platform. I suspect DO are in a similar situation and are looking to make a big leap forward with new growth leveraging their existing brand. I have no real evidence of this, but it feels like a sensible course of action. No one…
Amongst other obscure jobs I've been employed to dig people out of the crap many a time in the hosting sector so yes I'm pretty close to this sort of stuff. Normally in these situations, much as they do with DO already with disparate DC capabilities, you deploy infrastructure side-by-side and slowly port it over from one system to another. Developing the capabilities isn't really a big problem even if you build it ve…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iptables is powerful but definitely not simple. Simple is being able to simply say " allow all outgoing traffic and incoming traffic should only be allowed for HTTP(S) and SSH " and being able to figure out how to do it by just invoking "ufw --help". Maybe someday I'll learn about iptables, I'm sure it's going to be worth it, but for now ufw does the job for me.
> iptables is powerful but definitely not simple. > Maybe someday I'll learn about iptables Hmm... iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ALLOW iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ALLOW iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ALLOW iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j ALLOW iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j DROP So complicated...