Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | login

Not to be a negative nancy, but I hate these bullshit statistics.

When you break it down, its only 35 requests a second. Not a big deal at all. Any website that is relatively popular will do above and beyond that.

-----


https://google.com/search?q=100tb

There are many cheaper options. The ones you mention seem to be the most expensive.

-----


You have to read the fine print though. Amazon CloudFront, while expensive, is designed for delivering content globally.

Take 100TB for example (the first result in that Google Search)

    d. We strive to maintain a high level of service, and a lot of customers
       depend on our high standards of quality. As such, we will not provide
       Services to those that are using our Services for:
    
    vii. Using the Services for a content delivery network or content distribution
         network (CDN). An authorized CDN network offered through 100TB is
         accepted. Special requests to use the Services to run an unauthorized
         CDN network may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Failure to comply
         with this policy will result in termination of this TOS, and you will
         not receive a refund of the Fees.
If you look into the TOS even more, they basically disallow anything that's bandwidth intensive.

-----


S3 and Cloudfront are targeted at the dabbler, who will likely only be serving a GB or two per month, in which case S3 and Cloudfront would be pennies with no long term commitment. Once you move beyond that and are storing and serving more than 1 TB, you'd be better off with a monthly commitment.

-----


Just FYI, Cloudfront does heavily discount committed pricing.

-----


True, but that starts at 10 TB/mo

-----


Hetzner is around $200 for 100TB with 1gbit.

-----


The mentioned leaseweb is indeed cheaper $95 for a 100TB server, around $550 for an unmetered 1gbit server.

-----


And do not provide comparable service to a CDN. The comparison is really apples and oranges.

-----


@thezilch: My understanding from the article was that the poster wanted to deliver without load to his server, settled with 2 servers in NL and was not in for the CDN part.

-----


He mentioned only one which was Amazon. It is expensive but it's doing more than serving 100tb. The S3 provides redundancy and cloud front provides edge delivery.

Getting a server somewhere that has 100tb of outgoing is something different.

-----


None of the cheaper options I see there are comparable services. What danso was pointing out was that the service cloudfront was wanting $3000 costs $8000 elsewhere, it is not an unreasonable price. Getting maybe bandwidth from a sketchy dedicated server provider is not the same service as a content delivery network.

-----


Based on what I have read on many HN articles, what Cloudflare offers and what you receive are two very different products.

From being shut off when you have a incoming DDoS of some arbitrary size to actually loading webpages slower than your server does vanilla, it seems the benefits of Cloudflare are mostly hype.

-----


The "Only x remaining" part is sleazeball bullshit.

It was 5 a few hours ago, then 12, now 19.

Pretty sure it is supposed to go the other way.

-----


"Yet another thing nobody will use" said a active member of the incredibly popular centos remix, stella.

When asked about whats next for stella, nux was heavily focused on just getting his first dollar in revenue.

translation: Do not be a dick about other peoples stuff, especially when you have built things yourself which are less than noteworthy.

* http://li.nux.ro/stella/

-----


I second this. Negative opinion has no place here.

Worrisome facts, yes. Potential problems and helpful strategies, yes. Discouraging opinion with nothing to back it up, no.

Facebook is a huge, ugly blob and we urgently need something to replace it that is not organized from the top down. Yay to buddycloud!

-----


First, calling someone a dick while being a dick yourself is not very funny at all. Second, it may be hard to believe, but I was not actually being malicious. I _really_ want one of these projects to succeed, but I've learned to hold my horses ever since Diaspora. Third, leave my Stella alone.

-----


For those saying hes a normal guy who just likes trolling, the article mentions "Michael Brutsch had sex with his step daughter"

He was also the creator of subreddits that dealt with glorifying beating women and children. He has 100% of the right to live on the line and be a griefer and/or troll. He also has 100% of the right to feel the wrath of people he pisses off.

As a internet free speech advocate, I am sad that things are in this situation. As a parent and decent human being, I am not. He is surely on many FBI lists now.

-----


> For those saying hes a normal guy who just likes trolling, the article mentions "Michael Brutsch had sex with his step daughter"

According to him, while trolling. Yeah, real solid source. Definitely grounds to ruin someone's life.

Also, since when is that a crime? Or even immoral? It could be a massive breach of trust and immoral, depending on the situation. However depending on the relationship between wife, daughter and the guy, it could be just regular cheating. Or not even that.

He didn't rape his stepdaughter, or coerce his daughter, or have consensual sex with his underage stepdaughter. What he did was have consensual sex with a grown woman he has no blood relation to and for all you know has no parental relationship with either.

Hardly the "case closed" indictment you want it to be, even if it allows you to string together the words "sex" and "daughter" in the same sentence to elicit a knee-jerk negative response.

-----


Woody Allen did the same. He took a lot of flack for it, but people still watch his movies.

-----


Major tidbits from the article and appdata:

-Less than 500 daily users -Original site could not handle 100 concurrent users -Entire Dev team fired 2 years in and replaced -Team that replaced fired team will likely now depart with Eric

-----


The biggest weakness's to 2 factor auth are:

1: You can remove 2 factor auth without having to enter the auth code. So if your computer gets a virus, someone can just remove 2 factor auth via your browser

2: The "app specific passwords" are full on backdoors. If one of your app specific passwords gets hijacked, someone can login to your gmail with it and then remove the 2 factor auth pass (See above)

* http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/mobil...

-----


Aren't app specific passwords simply single-factor auth tokens, thus defeating the purpose of using two factor auth? Wouldn't a sufficiently complex pass-phrase be just as secure?

-----


No, because each app has a different token and you can revoke them individually.

Google does want people to use OAuth instead of app-specific passwords as much as possible, but sometimes that's not possible or just isn't done. Then you at least get some security from not posting the same password to a million places.

-----


Google's own products don't even conform to this. My Galaxy Nexus and Chrome browser requires app-specific passwords.

-----


The latest version of Chrome dev (21.0.1155.2 dev-m) does not require an app-specific password - it works with the OTP if you have it enabled, but at least for me the sync is broken at this point.

-----


"We have senior contacts at Google who we worked with in order to regain control of the Google Apps accounts"

Boy, its nice they get that privilege. I love gmail, but god help me the day I lose access to my account- I can only imagine the support whack-a-mole us mortals would have to go through to get any resolution.

Anyone remember the "thomas monopoly" story from a while back where gmail disabled the guy for weeks with no comment and the dude had to contact every person in the world to get someone to look at it? (And then they reinstated his account)

-----


Cloudflare isn't special. Any business (or individual) who pays for google apps gets 24/7 email and phone support. I hate this perception that google has terrible customer support. If you want support, stop being a free user.

-----


I friend of mine got his Gmail deactivated (as you know, without any explanation or means to dispute it). With it, hundreds of purchased Android apps got lost as well. As there isn't much you can do, after a week, he created a new account and had to repurchase most of the Android apps and switch all his accounts to it. Some services require access to your old email, so, he had to recreate some of those as well.

-----


Google having 24/7 email and phone support for google apps doesn't seem to jive with this statement in the parent:

"We have senior contacts at Google who we worked with"

Saying "senior contacts" seems to indicate that they have specific high level people that they personally know who were able to escalate beyond what the response would be for a typical user.

-----


A potential security hole is very different from someone being locked out of their account (as annoying as that is). Most web companies by now have sound procedures in place to quickly escalate those reports.

And yes, realistically, a larger service like CloudFlare is going to get more attention than any individual. It might seem unfair to the individual, but overall, it's in everyone's interest when a situation like this arises.

-----


My first though too.

They got great support, because they have a name. Any normal Gmail user would receive five automated reply emails from Goog, at most.

I'd love to move my email somewhere else, but there is not really any alternative.

-----


Here's a list of alternatives, and discussion.

http://www.emaildiscussions.com/showthread.php?t=64118

-----


Google Apps accounts are billed and offer phone support, right? I don't think there's a mechanism to upgrade/migrate free Gmail accounts to Google Apps, though.

-----


Is this users as in facebook installs, or users as in ios/android app installs. Big difference, as socialcam makes you authorize their facebook app to watch videos posted by other socialcam users via FB. Having those users add the socialcam app does not equal a app download, nor a active user in my opinion. Their only interaction was watching a video. Its the same thing as authorizing yahoo to read a story a friend posted. You can call that a "user" but you are just lieing to yourself. Its a glorified visit.

Still, its crazy impressive either way- But it does not compare to instagram style numbers if they are counting that. Instagram did their reported numbers in app downloads, not facebook auths.

-----


Have to agree that this stat smells a liiiitttttle fishy

https://twitter.com/#!/search/socialcam -- you'd expect more twitter action for a social thingie with 4MM new users in a weekend

-----


If you want evidence for how much adoption it has, download it and see how many followers you get.

More evidence: it's the #2 free app on the app store.

-----


#2 on app store is definitely impressive. Why only 25 ratings I wonder..

App is very nice, fast, and functional

Felt like a bit of a google+ ghost town vibe though. On the follow friends screen it looked like a ton of my friends were on socialcam but on the feed it's just the same 2 people posting, and not that frequently.

There are the celebs on there though..

All in all seems like they're doing pretty well and also exaggerating usership in the way the poster above describes

-----


Do you count videos served or videos uploaded as the primary metric for YouTube? It's the latter that drives revenue after all.

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: