Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

linuxmom.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#101

Post by HackerThemAll »

josteink wrote: post #95
HackerThemAll wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How Does MV3 Affect uBlock Origin? > uBlock Origin relies heavily on the webRequest API to block unwanted content before it loads. Under MV3, the webRequest API is limited, and extensions are encouraged to use the new declarativeNetRequest API instead. This new API allows for predefined rules but lacks some of the dynamic capabilities that uBlock Origin utilizes for advanced content blocking. https://ublockorigin.c…

Fair enough. But it’s clearly a trade-off. Some may want extensions with unchecked, unrestricted permissions to be able to do all-the-things (tm). Me on the other hand (and possibly others), with open-source projects often going haywire and crazy over time, feel more comfortable knowing that extensions cannot do more than I have permitted them. I guess this is for the market to decide. If V2 provides enough value for…

> If V2 provides enough value for enough users, it will stick around.

Unless these snowflakes enter panic mode because "Mozilla is selling all my files" and stop using Firefox for reasons that cannot be explained by logic, which I see is majority of news unfolding after Mozilla changed their wording.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#102

Post by hitekker »

neilv wrote: post #8

Why is a SaaS locking out a fairly high-profile customer like this, and publicly airing B2B accounts-receivable drama, to the customer's community? How big can the bill be, for something you could run on a 20 year-old PC? Given the strange coincidence with the social media outrage over TOU fiasco, I don't know who to be scratching my puzzled head at here.

The only thing Discourse said was "This site is in read-only mode because there are overdue hosting payments". It's a system message that's automatically shown when the customer forgets to pay their bills.

The drama comes from Mozilla's nonpayment, not Discourse's policy. Weird to try to pin the blame on Discourse.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#103

Post by hitekker »

msh wrote: post #26
benjojo12 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a pretty good way to get the bill paid to be honest I also run a B2B SaaS and I have found that over time the customers who I think are going to be terrible for paying, typically tend to be very good at paying and the customers who I think are going to be very good for paying (in that they have good standing in the community in things like that) tend to be pretty bad at paying on time (and with NET30 and all) Ul…

Suspending a service is one thing. Advertising that it’s due to non paid bills is inexcusable. Also consider how many bridges you would burn if it’s in error. Or it’s a disputed payment.

Some companies love to blame vendors for their own non-payment. The blameshift works when users only have the company's (the actual customer's) word for it.

Having basic transparency like "this service is in read-only due to nonpayment" really helps internal users to realize the company is being a bad customer. Which then pushes the company's reps to actually pay for the service.

So, no it's not inexcusable.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#104

Post by neilv »

Drakim wrote: post #60
neilv wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm totally with you on wanting to get paid in a timely manner. (I used to do NET 10 for consulting invoices.) But you'd do a courtesy call before cutting off a B2B customer? Even just to make sure they got the bill, and that a payment they made hadn't mistakenly not been credited. Which would be an opportunity for an immediate funds transfer or CC charge, if necessary to keep the site up. (Also an opportunity for th…

They will tell you it must have slipped though the cracks, and that they'll get right on it, but no payment will materialize.

Exactly. Which is why I said "Which would be an opportunity for an immediate funds transfer or CC charge, if necessary to keep the site up."

I'll work collegially with customers/partners who I think are being honest, or who can be nudged towards that from a somewhat different industry convention. But I wouldn't take "the check's in the mail" from someone who I thought was being dishonest. And an immediate payment would be appropriate for even honest people to do, in light of neglecting to mail a check in time.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#105

Post by Symbiote »

noAnswer wrote: post #98
Symbiote wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multiple reminders to the same person isn't much use if he's in hospital, and you're ignoring the out-of-office replies. The time this happened to us, I was pleased the company looked at our website and phoned the receptionist. We paid the bill within an hour, and moved the responsibility to the finance and IT teams. Maybe there are too many customers who just ignore bills for services they no longer want to use, I d…

I know of a company that missed its yearly Microsoft Exchange Online payment. After four month Microsoft cut of their email. Which one could argue is also a "public notice" because emails bounced. (That did the trick and the company paid immediately.) You are telling me: 1. Microsoft should have tried to find a different way to contact and reach out. 2. That you would have moved your eMail/Groupware to someone else b…

A sales person from Microsoft emails us every 3-6 months or so trying to upsell us on a more expensive 365 subscription.

I think their time would be well spent contacting a customer who hasn't paid.

Blocking sending email would also be a more reasonable step before blocking receiving email.

And yes, I'd consider moving.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#106

Post by Symbiote »

tbrownaw wrote: post #94
Symbiote wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been overdue on something like this, but a public notice would have left us moving to a competitor. It's easy for it to happen if a colleague is away for a month, or has left, and the bill isn't being seen by anyone. Do you read (do you even receive?) out-of-office replies to your invoices? Of course it shouldn't be on an individual's email, but with annual billing it's easy to overlook.

> It's easy for it to happen if a colleague is away for a month, or has left, and the bill isn't being seen by anyone. Why TF would important things like that go to a single person's individual mailbox? Take a couple hours to set up a canned ticketing / helpdesk thing or something, and have bills and other vendor alerts go to that email alias.

Because the companies make it easy to sign up with an individual's address, and that's often fine to test out the service.

Some then make it difficult to use a more appropriate address.

It's not ideal, but there's a huge amount of IT that doesn't follow the official policies — like all the teams using AWS rather than going through their official procurement procedure.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#107

Post by valenterry »

magicalhippo wrote: post #73
zx8080 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the explanation! Is there any chance to move away from the Discourse? It's a bit too slow (on any page opening), but the biggest issue is its hostile habit of catching the browser "find in page" hotkey (replacing the local find with the remote site search).

I hate that feature with an intensity that's hard to describe. I know you can press it again or something but for the love of $deity don't fuck with the defaults. That said I'm equally angry my browser so happily allows this. Sure if it's a proper web application like OnShape then sure, override default key bindings, but ask me first and remember my choice. If I say no then just don't feed those keystrokes to the web…

> but ask me first and remember my choice

This. Just this. I'd say websites should be able to "offer" their own search, so when you do find-in-page it shows the default search with a button to "change to custom website search ([ ] remember)" or so.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#108

Post by FredPret »

petesergeant wrote: post #50
35mm wrote: post #36

[flagged]

File this under things the government could fix pretty easily, and would make the economy run better, while being unpopular with a tiny fraction of voters.

“Pretty easily”

Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court.

Such a system will totally not get abused with bogus invoices either.

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#109

Post by petesergeant »

FredPret wrote: post #108
petesergeant wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

File this under things the government could fix pretty easily, and would make the economy run better, while being unpopular with a tiny fraction of voters.

“Pretty easily” Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court. Such a system will totally not get abused with bogus invoices either.

> Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court.

Set a mandate for companies over a certain revenue size to maintain records, and self-report. Do spot-checks and fine a percentage of revenue. You understand the government already performs audits, right?

> [bogus invoices will be a problem]

A worse problem than they already are for large accounts receivable departments? Why?

Re: Mozilla site down due to "overdue hosting payments" [fixed]

#110

Post by FredPret »

petesergeant wrote: post #109
FredPret wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Pretty easily” Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court. Such a system will totally not get abused with bogus invoices either.

> Sure, how hard can it be to police the payment terms on every one of the likely billions of invoices out there and drag non-payers to court. Set a mandate for companies over a certain revenue size to maintain records, and self-report. Do spot-checks and fine a percentage of revenue. You understand the government already performs audits, right? > [bogus invoices will be a problem] A worse problem than they already a…

Much better to work within the confines of the existing legal structure, which has been hammered out over millennia and takes into account myriad edge cases and overlapping rights and concerns.

Word-of-mouth, the small claims court, and careful cashflow management is sufficient for a small company doing business with large ones.

What you're describing is an EU-style behemoth of a government, which isn't even popular in Europe.

Post reply on HN