CloudatCost end of Life
-
@68biscayne said:
I thought they were going our of business also, turns out it's just a change. I want to provide the full reply to others so as to show they are still selling, just a different way:
Valued Customers,
CloudAtCost has announced that the end of Developer and BigDog Servers will be Friday Nov 13th at 11PM EST.Already got one?
Awesome!! Keep it forever and never pay agan.Still Want a Developer or BigDog?
You can still purchase any Developer and Bigdog up to Friday Nov 13th at 11PM EST.
These packages will be removed and you will only have the option to purchase CloudPRO resources.
In addition we will also be ending the option to "Migrate to CloudPRO" at that same time.Dont wait!
To migrate your existing server resources simply login to the panel at https://panel.cloudatcost.com, find your server you wish to migrate and select the "Migrate" option.
Please ensure you backup your data.
Once completed you can click CloudPRO and you will see all your resources you can start using.For a quick video on using CloudPro please see..
Youtube VideoSounds like a C@C marketing post here..
-
-
I gotta say one thing positive thing about C@C they have a determined marketing team...LOL
-
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@anonymous said:
@Jason That seems like a bit much.
No different than a cabling company suing to get back pay from someone when they forget to disconnect the service to the customer.
Actually that seems like a bit much. I can see back charging for something like webhosting VPS hosting when it's quite clear the purchaser is still using them... but cable - How do you prove they were using it?
Actually it's still a crime. Cable companes can detect which devices are watching, heck even some the newer stuff will report the Model # of it.
Did I say it wasn't a crime? I very carefully explained that it WAS a crime, but only because they wrote a new kind of law to make it so because it isn't on its own.
-
@IRJ said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@anonymous said:
@Jason That seems like a bit much.
No different than a cabling company suing to get back pay from someone when they forget to disconnect the service to the customer.
Actually that seems like a bit much. I can see back charging for something like webhosting VPS hosting when it's quite clear the purchaser is still using them... but cable - How do you prove they were using it?
Actually it's still a crime. Cable companes can detect which devices are watching, heck even some the newer stuff will report the Model # of it.
Here is the difference the government is in bed with the cable companies. They have never even heard of C@C. Saying someone is going to get sued over a VPS is a bit extreme.
C@C has their heads so far up their ass that they have no clue anyway. Even if they did decide to try to sue, it would get thrown out immediately once they say all the PayPal charge backs and complaints.
Yeah, notice the "passive theft" wording makes it only about cable services - because it is in no way theft.
-
@68biscayne you need to read the threads about CloudatCost. You would never, ever use them no matter what BS they feed you in their email ads if you were aware of the situation.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@anonymous said:
@Jason That seems like a bit much.
No different than a cabling company suing to get back pay from someone when they forget to disconnect the service to the customer.
Actually that seems like a bit much. I can see back charging for something like webhosting VPS hosting when it's quite clear the purchaser is still using them... but cable - How do you prove they were using it?
Actually it's still a crime. Cable companes can detect which devices are watching, heck even some the newer stuff will report the Model # of it.
Here is the difference the government is in bed with the cable companies. They have never even heard of C@C. Saying someone is going to get sued over a VPS is a bit extreme.
C@C has their heads so far up their ass that they have no clue anyway. Even if they did decide to try to sue, it would get thrown out immediately once they say all the PayPal charge backs and complaints.
Yeah, notice the "passive theft" wording makes it only about cable services - because it is in no way theft.
Cause if it was someone leaving $5 in my house would be theft.
-
@Jason said:
Cause if it was someone leaving $5 in my house would be theft.
Again, nothing like that. You can try all you want to support cable companies but it is super clear that no normal concept of theft applies to a company running a cable into your house and pumping unrequested material into it. Under normal laws, if the government was not providing special cases, you could sue the cable company for putting things in your house without your permission. Like adult channels. They don't have the right to force that into a home. I've had them put it on my antenna before. Claim all you want that changing channels is stealing but that's just lying. Cable companies only get to consider this a crime because of corruption.
There is zero stealing involved if something is being pumped into your house without your authority or request. I'm not talking about splicing lines or anything, I'm talking about the cable company doing it.
I've had cable forced into my home and sometimes you can't even know it is cable. If you can't know it is a crime, you know you are dealing with corruption.
-
@Jason said:
Cause if it was someone leaving $5 in my house would be theft.
If you force money into my house, have no way to give it back, make it clear that it is your money and force it over time over and over into my hands but have no means to return it and...
See how completely struggling you are to come up with something "theft like" to make it a crime?
If I move into a new house and there is a $5 bill in it, by law, that money is mine, actually. So even in your unrelated, contrived example, it isn't theft.
-
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@anonymous said:
@Jason That seems like a bit much.
No different than a cabling company suing to get back pay from someone when they forget to disconnect the service to the customer.
Actually that seems like a bit much. I can see back charging for something like webhosting VPS hosting when it's quite clear the purchaser is still using them... but cable - How do you prove they were using it?
Actually it's still a crime. Cable companes can detect which devices are watching, heck even some the newer stuff will report the Model # of it.
Here is the difference the government is in bed with the cable companies. They have never even heard of C@C. Saying someone is going to get sued over a VPS is a bit extreme.
C@C has their heads so far up their ass that they have no clue anyway. Even if they did decide to try to sue, it would get thrown out immediately once they say all the PayPal charge backs and complaints.
Yeah, notice the "passive theft" wording makes it only about cable services - because it is in no way theft.
Cause if it was someone leaving $5 in my house would be theft.
Is this really a crime? $5 is left on your counter and you see it but don't touch it... suddenly you are committing theft?
-
@coliver said:
Is this really a crime? $5 is left on your counter and you see it but don't touch it... suddenly you are committing theft?
Even if you touch it. Remember with cable theft you don't necessarily know that there is a cable involved, don't know who the provider is, did not let them in your house, etc.
If stealing cable is a crime, does providing cable to be stolen constitute breaking and entering?
-
@coliver said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@anonymous said:
@Jason That seems like a bit much.
No different than a cabling company suing to get back pay from someone when they forget to disconnect the service to the customer.
Actually that seems like a bit much. I can see back charging for something like webhosting VPS hosting when it's quite clear the purchaser is still using them... but cable - How do you prove they were using it?
Actually it's still a crime. Cable companes can detect which devices are watching, heck even some the newer stuff will report the Model # of it.
Here is the difference the government is in bed with the cable companies. They have never even heard of C@C. Saying someone is going to get sued over a VPS is a bit extreme.
C@C has their heads so far up their ass that they have no clue anyway. Even if they did decide to try to sue, it would get thrown out immediately once they say all the PayPal charge backs and complaints.
Yeah, notice the "passive theft" wording makes it only about cable services - because it is in no way theft.
Cause if it was someone leaving $5 in my house would be theft.
Is this really a crime? $5 is left on your counter and you see it but don't touch it... suddenly you are committing theft?
No, I was saying that's how the laws work for cable companies.
-
@Jason said:
@coliver said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@anonymous said:
@Jason That seems like a bit much.
No different than a cabling company suing to get back pay from someone when they forget to disconnect the service to the customer.
Actually that seems like a bit much. I can see back charging for something like webhosting VPS hosting when it's quite clear the purchaser is still using them... but cable - How do you prove they were using it?
Actually it's still a crime. Cable companes can detect which devices are watching, heck even some the newer stuff will report the Model # of it.
Here is the difference the government is in bed with the cable companies. They have never even heard of C@C. Saying someone is going to get sued over a VPS is a bit extreme.
C@C has their heads so far up their ass that they have no clue anyway. Even if they did decide to try to sue, it would get thrown out immediately once they say all the PayPal charge backs and complaints.
Yeah, notice the "passive theft" wording makes it only about cable services - because it is in no way theft.
Cause if it was someone leaving $5 in my house would be theft.
Is this really a crime? $5 is left on your counter and you see it but don't touch it... suddenly you are committing theft?
No, I was saying that's how the laws work for cable companies.
Ah, got it I thought you were arguing globally.
-
@Jason said:
@coliver said:
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@anonymous said:
@Jason That seems like a bit much.
No different than a cabling company suing to get back pay from someone when they forget to disconnect the service to the customer.
Actually that seems like a bit much. I can see back charging for something like webhosting VPS hosting when it's quite clear the purchaser is still using them... but cable - How do you prove they were using it?
Actually it's still a crime. Cable companes can detect which devices are watching, heck even some the newer stuff will report the Model # of it.
Here is the difference the government is in bed with the cable companies. They have never even heard of C@C. Saying someone is going to get sued over a VPS is a bit extreme.
C@C has their heads so far up their ass that they have no clue anyway. Even if they did decide to try to sue, it would get thrown out immediately once they say all the PayPal charge backs and complaints.
Yeah, notice the "passive theft" wording makes it only about cable services - because it is in no way theft.
Cause if it was someone leaving $5 in my house would be theft.
Is this really a crime? $5 is left on your counter and you see it but don't touch it... suddenly you are committing theft?
No, I was saying that's how the laws work for cable companies.
Yes, because it is a very specific law that makes "stealing cable" a crime when it isn't theft, just like I explained in the original post. Stealing cable needed its own law because no existing theft law would cover it since no actual theft is taking place.
-
@scottalanmiller I only run a small minecraft server with them. What upset was that at some point someone got access to my account and deleted the VM and deployed a windows VM. No idea how they did it, but my son was heartbroken he lost everything he had done. that's the only thing that ever came up for me (although a big one)
-
@68biscayne said:
@scottalanmiller I only run a small minecraft server with them. What upset was that at some point someone got access to my account and deleted the VM and deployed a windows VM. No idea how they did it, but my son was heartbroken he lost everything he had done. that's the only thing that ever came up for me (although a big one)
Good luck running minecraft there with there IOWait issues.. And windows has no legal way of running on C@C.
-
@Jason for windows, maybe it's a license thing? don't know, don't have one. The server seems to be running it just fine for him. Just one 8 year old playing on the server and he hasn't told me he is having issues. Then again, he rarely complains about anything when he is allowed to use the computer. I should ask him if the game is "slow"
-
@68biscayne said:
@scottalanmiller I only run a small minecraft server with them. What upset was that at some point someone got access to my account and deleted the VM and deployed a windows VM. No idea how they did it, but my son was heartbroken he lost everything he had done. that's the only thing that ever came up for me (although a big one)
That's really weird. Could be any external hacking attempt, of course, although that is super weird.
Also weird that he got Minecraft working there. Even CloudatCost themselves were unable to get one working when they offered one to the community a year ago. They didn't have enough horsepower on their systems to run one fast enough to work.
-
@68biscayne said:
@Jason for windows, maybe it's a license thing? don't know, don't have one. The server seems to be running it just fine for him. Just one 8 year old playing on the server and he hasn't told me he is having issues. Then again, he rarely complains about anything when he is allowed to use the computer. I should ask him if the game is "slow"
It's a storage problem. We documented it for them heavily. They don't use scale out storage but run on cheap, overloaded SAN (which was our first big indicator that they didn't know what they were doing.) Because of that architecture and lack of knowledge, they were never able to fix their IO issues. It would install fine and fire up but everyone who tried it found it unusable.
If you follow the tag link that I sent there are scores of threads here discussing their IO issues. Some back when people were trying to help them resolve them. Many after we had given up and realized that they were just trying to get our money and then make the system so slow that no one would actually use it.
