02-Dec-2020 22:22 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] amiga.com up againANN.lu
Posted on 10-May-2000 06:57 GMT by Christian Kemp34 comments
View flat
View list
Many people wrote in to say that amiga.com is up again, after what seemed like taking the weekend off. When was the last time you saw a company website, or even a personal homepage, being down for two days?
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Eoghann Irving09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
amiga.com up again : Comment 2 of 34ANN.lu
Posted by Christian Kemp on 09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 1 (Eoghann Irving):
I tend to disagree. If you pay premium money for your connectivity, and I assume Amiga does that, it is your right to demand 99% uptime. Being down for two days means only 93.5% uptime for that month.
In the two years that I've been with Dreamhost now, their longest downtime was little over a day, and they admittedly had major problems back then. But I'm paying next to nothing, compared to more expensive hosting and colocation plans out there (which I assume Amiga are using).
I'm not sure who's to blame for the server outage. If it was the hosting provider, Amiga didn't really make a good choice when switching. If it was Amiga's fault, they definately should hire a dedicated webmaster who knows what to do in such situations.
If, like Amiga you attempt to gain a marketshare, get new developers on board, make strategic partnerships with large companies, you cannot have a website that's badly designed, and completely down for two days in a row.
Like I commented in the news article, it is strange how almost all websites thrive to have 99% uptime, and the large majority of them succeed; while Amiga goes on hiatus for two days for the second time this year (the first time due to a server change). If even my personal homepage that barely costs me 10$ a month has a more reliable connection and a better uptime than amiga.com, a company with budget of I-don't-know-how-many-millions, then something is definately wrong.
Jump...
#14 Shaun #17 Robert Simmonds #22 John Shepard
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 3Erik Oftedal09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 4Christian Kemp09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 5Len Carsner09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 6damocles09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 7Marc09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 8Christian Kemp09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 9Stuart09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 10Pierre Narcisse09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 11alf09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 12cYB0rG09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 13Shaun09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 14Shaun09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 15Michael Jantzen09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 16Anonymous09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 17Robert Simmonds09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 18Eoghann Irving09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 19Joseph "Floid" Kanowitz09-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 20Michael Jantzen10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 21Mark Wilson10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 22John Shepard10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 23Mark Rippetoe10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 24J. M. Furtado Sr.10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 25Eoghann Irving10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 26Shaun10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 27Robert Simmonds10-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 28Michael Jantzen11-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 29Jofre Furtado11-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 30Byron11-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 31Jofre Furtado11-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 32MAS12-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 33J. M Furtado Sr.13-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Comment 34Jofre Furtado13-May-2000 22:00 GMT
Back to Top