CloudatCost Issues
-
What the crap does this mean?
Cloud At Cost System Message:
05/02/2015 09:26 AM
Thanks for those that have taken the CloudPRO service. At this time all issues in building servers is resolved. We are however backlogged on the build Q so you might find the server builds are taking longer than expected. We expect this to cleanup today as we add more hardware over the weekend.Thanks for your support
CloudatCost team.Are they rebuilding VMs manually?
-
@nadnerB said:
They're Canadian, right?
Why haven't they tweeted #sorry ?
I thought that was a stereotypical Canadian tagline. Perhaps I'm incorrect about the tag line or their Canadian legitimacy.Maybe they aren't true Canadian's but only do business there. They sure don't seem like the polite Canadian's I know.
-
Perhaps we (as in affected people) should be flooding CloudAtCost with tickets instead of putting our rant pants on while here.
This is not at anyone specific, just a comment about the general feel of posts concerning a certain provider of VPS test bunnies with myxomatosis (educational link [Wikipedia])
-
There's no point in opening tickets they are just responding with canned responses. Most companies know when its time to call it quits and just close down. Yet, cloud@costs doesn't even know when to do that.
-
@AmanBhogal said:
@thecreativeone91
Not at all about filterning through the PR team. matter of fact, I kinda am the PR team.
It's more of making sure we make the right decisions and make the right steps to move forward.
So three months later.... still no answers.
-
Doing all this ML work today takes me back to a time when THIS was a major topic around here. Anyone remember these guys? What a trainwreck this was. C@C was a major part of our first year here at ML. Hard to believe that that was 2014/15 and that it is already 2021.
-
@scottalanmiller and I STILL get emails from them demanding payment
-
It had potential, but was an utter failure.
Ah well. And has it really been that long!? Wow
-
@gjacobse said in CloudatCost Issues:
It had potential, but was an utter failure.
Ah well. And has it really been that long!? Wow
I don't know that it really had potential. Their financial model wasn't viable. Less "potential" and more "too good to be true". And that's exactly what happened.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CloudatCost Issues:
@gjacobse said in CloudatCost Issues:
It had potential, but was an utter failure.
Ah well. And has it really been that long!? Wow
I don't know that it really had potential. Their financial model wasn't viable. Less "potential" and more "too good to be true". And that's exactly what happened.
No doubt there. Their side the model just didn’t work...
-
@scottalanmiller said in CloudatCost Issues:
@gjacobse said in CloudatCost Issues:
It had potential, but was an utter failure.
Ah well. And has it really been that long!? Wow
I don't know that it really had potential. Their financial model wasn't viable. Less "potential" and more "too good to be true". And that's exactly what happened.
To be fair to Gene, you said it had potential back when it first came out.
-
@stacksofplates said in CloudatCost Issues:
@scottalanmiller said in CloudatCost Issues:
@gjacobse said in CloudatCost Issues:
It had potential, but was an utter failure.
Ah well. And has it really been that long!? Wow
I don't know that it really had potential. Their financial model wasn't viable. Less "potential" and more "too good to be true". And that's exactly what happened.
To be fair to Gene, you said it had potential back when it first came out.
-
Damn. Yeah they had me snookered. At least to the benefit of the doubt level.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CloudatCost Issues:
Damn. Yeah they had me snookered. At least to the benefit of the doubt level.
Yeah. I used them for a while and when it worked, it was good. But by the time they started trying to bill me for the maintenance or whatever, I had already stopped using them due to the number of problems.
