Does anybody know if Google plans to allow claiming a deleted account... ever? I'm hoping that since I was granted +MyName in G+ I will be allowed to recover (long story) MyName@gmail.com... (It was MyName@googlemail.com and I wasn't happy... and let it expire...)
I think it becomes a relative path without the final/root dot. That is, "example.net" in the zone file "mydomain.com" will be understood as "example.net.mydomain.com.".
Sorry, there is no audio/video of it. This was supposed to be just a casual chat, but it turned out to be an incredible exchange of more than one hour. I wasn't prepared to record the conversation, but I wish I had.
That was my first thought. Will downloading tcpdump get you in trouble? What if it's "homemade"? Compilers will be next, since the enable the creation of these tools...
Well, I wont login into root specially to run a browser.. if you happen to login as root for some reasons, and you need to run chrome then a clean way is what I have put in the post.. u dont need to log out from X and re login again with your user..
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan
Complicated code that isn't easy to maintain isn't smart, it's just complicated. One thing people screw up a lot is implementing some design pattern in a way that ends up shotgunning configuration or business logic over a wide area instead of keeping it in one location and using DRY.
Sorry for bringing this off-topic issue on AWS: is it possible to set hard caps on monthly spending in AWS? I just asked this [1] but didn't receive a single upvote =S. Thanks.
No, AFAIk AWS does not have the ability to restrict usage based on expenditure. There are startups that do this though, check http://www.enstratus.com/.
You could set your own cap by monitoring on your server, and shut down services as needed. Maybe a new startup idea here for someone? We monitor our bandwidth here, and while we haven't had to deactivate services it's something we're prepared for.
Except if you go on vacation to unplug for a week and had some bug or misconfiguration couldn't you easily run up a bill in the hundreds or thousands when you expect it to be in the tens?
If this is so implausible then why can't they provide a cap? It feels to me that they are purposefully trying to capitalize on people's mistakes. Call me paranoid but it is honestly the primary reason why I've been wary to play with AWS.
Most sites with the kind of traffic that could potentially run up the bill thousands of dollars will have checks in place to ensure a mistake like that wouldn't happen. Anything else would be irresponsible.. I'd challenge your assumption that Amazon is intentionally trying capitalize on mistakes... A company a big as Amazon doesn't have the time or need to even consider something like that.. And yes, I think you're being paranoid.
A spending control is such an obvious feature, and wouldn't exactly be difficult for them to implement. For some toy project it doesn't have to be thousands of dollars for this to be an annoyance to me, I have no desire to get a surprise bill of $200 at the end of a month even though I can easily afford it.
Doesn't it seem bizarre to give your credit card number over and agree to pay some undisclosed sum with no cap? If it's my money and I'm paying for some nonessential service, I expect to never be surprised at how much I'm charged, even if its $10 when I expected $2.
> I'd challenge your assumption that Amazon is intentionally trying capitalize on mistakes
I actually worked at Amazon (not on AWS) and I've worked at a few other BigCo's and you might be surprised by how many things exactly like this they do have the time and desire to worry about. You have it backwards; for a company as big as Amazon it's worth paying an entire salary just to worry about things like this, since a fraction of a percent of increased AWS income will more than pay for itself. It's extremely likely they are at least trying to capitalize on people who sign up for the free tier and accidentally go over their limit, or else they would have a "trial" mode that only confirms your credit card and won't ever charge it without your approval.
> Most sites with the kind of traffic that could potentially run up the bill thousands of dollars will have checks in place to ensure a mistake like that wouldn't happen.
One thing that'd help dramatically would be exposing the various account activity and cost data via API. There's currently no API for accessing one's monthly spend to-date.
From a comment elsewhere, looks like they're sorta working on it, finally (CloudWatch metric).
I don't think Amazon is being dishonest, but you can see that, regardless the individual degree of paranoia, there are quite a few small developers who don't try AWS just to be safe.
My point is that it makes business sense for Amazon to lure this old-fashioned crowd, and it could do so by implementing a simple feauture such as spending control.
