I also don't like giving money to Russia, but unfortunately Yandex seems like the last big search engine not to censor a lot of results (I know it won't last forever).
That's scary. I'm in the process of moving all of my services to Europe, and I had considered BunnyCDN, but after this I'm not so sure anymore.
I also tried Hetzner Object Storage. I love Hetzner, they're great, except for their Object Storage service, which is completely unreliable (errors, slowness, etc.). I'm surprised that Hetzner still hasn't retired that product until it's properly fixed.
My last chance is with Scaleway. Xavier Niel's products are always good, so fingers crossed...
Scaleway is a disaster in terms of handling payments.
At some point there was a bug in their payment system and I couldn't pay an invoice. The payment failed the first time due to lack of funds on my account (this initial failure was my fault). Once my account had funds, retrying failed with a vague error on Scaleway's side.
I reached out to support, and it was a known limitation: if your initial payment fails, you an only retry with a subset of their supported payment methods. I didn't have access to any of these payment methods, and I made it clear that I could pay, but only with the payment methods we'd been using thus far.
They kept sending me emails reminding me of this overdue bill and threatening to send collection agency, all while I kept exchanging messages with support complaining that their system gave an internal error.
The bill was, by the way, for less than €10. But a collection agency will charge you hundreds for the "collection" service.
They were aware of the error in their payment system, but it seems they had no intention of fixing it. After months of back and forth, they just cancelled the invoice.
The amount of time and stress in dealing with was ridiculous.
I have been using for sw for object storage for a while. I haven't had a a issue with them with object storage.
only problem I had was with a another product called cockpit(they ship metrics about object storage there), which they bundled with object storage product, which cannot be disabled.
This month I had a 12 euro surcharge, because they enabled something in cockpit by default a while ago and suddenly start to charging for it.
There is also OVH (not affiliated, just happily using their VPS), but I would consider switching to 2 providers, as any provider can have data loss or just lock your account at anytime for any reasons. 2 providers with free egress so you can easily replicate data between them.
I guess you may have alot of files, but to me object storage is so cheap I keep copies on Aws S3, wasabi, r2 and a 16 TB HDD on my hetzner server.
Admittedly 4 might be too many. But at some point I switched to r2 for the free public egress and deleting one of Aws or wasabi has never been a priority and I don't want to do it without putting in the time to quadruple check I'm not deleting anything important.
But at the very least id have 3. I'd hate to discover that my S3 was blown up in a war and then copying everything my HDD was the last straw that pushed an aging drive over the edge.
Not if you are coming from windows and are not a tech nerd. I don’t want to end up being tech support for some non techie I coerced into Linux. It is nowhere near as seamless as zealots like to believe. Been having this discussion since 1997.
Have you actually tried a modern distro like Linux Mint?
Seriously, you don't even need to touch the terminal, everything is neatly organized in a single control panel (unlike the messy >2 control panels situation of Windows).
You can easily install all the applications you want; even games thanks to Steam and Proton.
It's easy to use, there are no ads, no preinstalled adware, no nagware, everything is fast and clean.
I”ve been installing Linux desktops for decades (mostly Ubuntu, but in the day: Suse and RedHat, and Qubes, and FreeBSD and NetBSD, Nix, Arch, etc…) I always check out the latest LTS release of Ubuntu. I tried Mint and didn’t see a huge difference. Same sort of belly flops into the shell to make things work, but with a difference skin. It is not fundamentally different than any other distribution with a desktop in my opinion of staring at this for 30+ years.
Honestly I've had more technical problems installing Windows than Linux Mint recently, not to mention the multiple hours spent hunting down and disabling all of the telemetry and ads in Windows. Still can't believe they put ads in File Explorer.
Here we go again. I don't love the CEO pay but it's like 1% of their annual revenue and typical for positions like that, and Mozilla constantly suffers from these kinds of double sided, quantum accusations. Depending on which random HN thread you're in, the accusation is that (a) they're running out of money and urgently need to innovate to grow their revenue streams but also (b) they've got so much money and their spending of it is simply more evidence of how wasteful they are. Which is it this time?
>and God knows what else.
They publish their financial reports. It's mostly.... the browser. They actually spend more in total and in inflation adjusted terms directly on the browser than ever in their history as a company. Unless they're just faking all those reports? Need more than vibes here.
There's something about this specific part that doesn't sit well with me.
It's like justifying a huge salary for the president of a charity because they receive millions a year in donations and revenue from charity shops... it's just wrong.
7 million (assuming that's the correct value) is a lot of money. Perhaps not as much as they'd make at Google, but a lot of money nonetheless. And Mozilla is supposed to be a non-profit, with a good mission, with a manifesto, in a David vs Goliath struggle... but the CEO still makes millions, even when cuts are being made those working on the main mission?
The bar for Mozilla is different because they present themselves as being different. Multi-million salaries is what you expect from regular companies, not from good non-profits, and I think that's why the CEO's salary always comes up in these discussions.
With all this said, I also agree with the point about some of the criticism. Nothing Mozilla does pleases everyone, there's always something. It's a hard position to be in.
> urgently need to innovate to grow their revenue streams
No, people are saying that Firefox needs to diversify their revenue streams because almost all of their revenue comes from their main competitor who (likely) only keeps Firefox alive to keep regulators from forcing them to divest their browser. The situation has gotten more dire since the regulators got fired last year.
You're basically restating the very argument I'm citing, but phrasing it like you're expressing a disagreement. Diversifying revenue and growing revenue are distinct but overlapping, and both charges are made against Mozilla. This represents one side of the quantum accusation, the other being that even their search revenue is excessive and unnecessary, they don't need to spend that much anyway. According to this perspective, the 1.2 billion they have on hand should be enough to finance, development in perpetuity.
Which side of the quantum accusation will be invoked in any given comment thread? Flip a coin and find out.
Just shows how quickly and thoroughly those stupid suits managed to destroy its reputation. Guess they love burning money or really needed those tax writeoffs.
They fill app their mobile apps with junk data just to make the APK/IPA bigger. So if they need to push an urgent update, they won't have users that can't update because their phones are full to the brim.
I know two Italian banks that do it, Unicredit and Intesa. The latter was on the news when a user found out that one of the filler files was a burp recording [1].
Doesnt this create an arms race situation where every 'critical' app claims a larger diskspace than necessary, just in case, and accelerates the issue?
Kinda sorta, but there's a limit where users will typically install X apps and apps of Y size need Z extra space to update. User content would fill up the rest. I would imagine a typical 256 gb phone is probably over this limit and people who take lots of videos/photos just need to clean up their phone a little more often.
But you still need a bunch of extra space to download and unpack the new version, and there are so many apps that need to share space, and a banking app should only need about 0.1% of a phone's storage...
Hey.com works that way. You have to approve new senders before they can reach your inbox. And you can always revoke their permission to message you.
I'd like to see that concept replicated to other email services. I don't particularly like all the other opinionated choices of Hey.com (especially the fact that you can't use IMAP).
I sketched out a protocol for this a while back. The root cause of email abuse is that the only thing you need to send email to somebody is knowledge of their email address. We need to change that so that you also need their consent.
The initial email verification sent to you (“click here to confirm your email address”) includes an attachment requesting an auth token. Emails with this attachment get presented to the user in something akin to a friend request for email, with a consent screen describing how they intend to use your email and for how long. Approving the request hands them a Biscuit token.
The sender attenuates this token when sending email to you or when sharing with a third party provider like Mailchimp. Any emails authorised by a token automatically skip all spam filters. This is the carrot for senders to adopt – they can stop worrying about all the deliverability and IP reputation nonsense and can just send direct from their own servers, reversing the centralisation of email and making it more reliable by skipping spam filter heuristics.
All of these emails have reliable provenance and traceability. If a leak / abuse happens, you can revoke the token and any emails sent with it. Senders can also proactively revoke any tokens provided to third-parties in case they were breached, without affecting the sender’s ability to send themselves or through other providers.
Once a critical mass hits, you can auto-deny anything without a token. At this point, all the email you receive is from somebody who has obtained your explicit consent to do so.
reply