@Nekki said: Disagree, we should mock the dumb when they come to complain about the results of doing dumb things.
But that is my point - people do make dumb decisions and so do companies.
LES should not be the place to come to be ridiculed, I agree it should not be the place to expect to be told you did the right thing when you didn't.
The key to all of this is getting a balance.
I have seen many of your comments and like most of them in fact they are often very 'mind (although you would say something else) expanding. My comment was certainly not aimed at you.
This thread is going down the route of lets stop someone from crying and bash them - The OP has an opinion and as you have said to me you disagree with my comment, that is fine. But others on here disagree and push things too far.
As I have said if people want drama go to LET and let jbilloh enjoy the feedback.
LES should be better than that.
@VirMach said: What exactly are you assuming we did in addition to posting an offer you did not like and why does that matter if you didn't read what the offer even is? To you, at the moment you made your purchase, all you were promised was A ) mystery, B ) possibly being upset per the checkbox. You were provided with both.
I think the other person is suggesting that more people were upset than happy, so feels that this was unfair.
You must also understand that you wrote the rules (particularly the location selection) to be obscure. You knew how the 'deal' was going to work and explained it clearly (in your own opinion). Others interpret things differently - that is the problem with our language and I completely agree it can't be solved. But once again hammering someone because they checked boxes saying things like 'possibly' also means possibly not.
@HiEndSoul said: I also want a hard number as I appealed at the very beginning of this thread to let @VirMach post the whole result publicly now looks like you’re another supporter of transparency.
How does that in any way relate to your grievances? You are upset that 128MB was a possibility for something you had zero information on and decided to order anyway, right? And that we should have made it 384MB minimum? Or are you fishing for more things to be upset about?
What exactly are you assuming we did in addition to posting an offer you did not like and why does that matter if you didn't read what the offer even is? To you, at the moment you made your purchase, all you were promised was A ) mystery, B ) possibly being upset per the checkbox. You were provided with both.
Because @Jab wants the hard number of each prize, do you have it?
And there is another important question have been repeated many times in this thread is that how do you decide to put the initial buyers in the worst batch instead of give everyone a fair chance to lottery the prizes? Of course it’s still okay because it’s a ‘mystery’ for buyers but that break their faith to believe you operating business in a good manner
Some of the people that got 128MB may be getting upgrades, if the next plan is worse, I'll keep them the same. If they love their 10TB bandwidth they can ask for it to be rolled back.
Oh neat, looks like I got bumped to a 640mb/25gb/2tb, that's actually perfectly usable. Not exactly a big winner, but definitely better than I expected.
@HiEndSoul said:
I don’t mean to defend because I accept the risk to get anything (even nothing) while buying that mystery box
What disappointed me is how the customers are dealt with during this campaign to let so many people get almost not usable VPS. It can make a meme but they shouldn’t spread so many 128MB.
And the most important thing is that those rushed to buy without knowing the details are the guys who trusted VirMach most that never thought will be toyed with. These guys should have a fair chance to lottery with the prizes. But as a result VirMach just decided to give the first batch the worst plan as it is not a randomized lottery model.
As far as I could tell, the provider made no guarantees about the distribution ratio of resource brackets or the odds of getting a VPS at the higher end of resource configuration. If it was a non-working product, it would be a different story, but "almost not usable" sounds like it is still usable at the minimum configuration, after uptime, network connectivity and other factors are accounted for.
Those that rushed to buy without knowing the details will hopefully learn the difference between trusting a provider, and having expectations about a product without reviewing the plain terms of what is being offered. Reading helps align expectations and reduce the chances of disappointment, saving both buyer and provider time/grief.
Random in this case could have meant non-selective rather than RNG seeding randomness. Somewhere along the way, someone else would get the minimum one, if all plans were sold. That much was clear from the offer terms, it specifically said the VPS configurations were preset.
Not a Virmach customer, just another forum member looking at the situation.
@HiEndSoul said: Because @Jab wants the hard number of each prize, do you have it?
Oh, I don't want those numbers from @VirMach. I know how gambling works, I trust LES&VirMach staff that they made it 'balanced'.
I wanted those numbers from you, you were speaking about many and I wanted to know how many is many and if you even know or just throwing that many because bias. 1 out of 100? 50 out of 250? 10 out of 200? 15 out of 500?
And to answer the question: why it wasn't RNG "per order" and in batches/ranks - manual labor - it's easier to deploy 20-30 orders in a row for the same specs than filling all that things one by one each time [plus knowing human nature this would end with some typos, broken specs, drama].
Plus have you ever asked how those batches/ranks were awarded/selected in first place? What if it was RNG and with different roll it would end that SKU #1 was the BEST ONE, for like first 5 people? You just assumed that VirMach was there to punish you.
I understand the anger [I would be little pissed off too if I would get 128MB, however I know that it could be there, it was nicely listed in the post], but please stop "projecting" and assuming everyone is there to get you/punish you/hates you. Use facts, numbers, make an informed decision.
@HiEndSoul said: I also want a hard number as I appealed at the very beginning of this thread to let @VirMach post the whole result publicly now looks like you’re another supporter of transparency.
How does that in any way relate to your grievances? You are upset that 128MB was a possibility for something you had zero information on and decided to order anyway, right? And that we should have made it 384MB minimum? Or are you fishing for more things to be upset about?
What exactly are you assuming we did in addition to posting an offer you did not like and why does that matter if you didn't read what the offer even is? To you, at the moment you made your purchase, all you were promised was A ) mystery, B ) possibly being upset per the checkbox. You were provided with both.
Checkbox gives right to complaint. Express dissapointment. Emanate rage. Exude emotion.
If a user tick the checkbox it does not mean he has no right to express his feelings towards checkbox creator. And no, checkbox does not void "crap services" from the equation.
@HiEndSoul said: I also want a hard number as I appealed at the very beginning of this thread to let @VirMach post the whole result publicly now looks like you’re another supporter of transparency.
How does that in any way relate to your grievances? You are upset that 128MB was a possibility for something you had zero information on and decided to order anyway, right? And that we should have made it 384MB minimum? Or are you fishing for more things to be upset about?
What exactly are you assuming we did in addition to posting an offer you did not like and why does that matter if you didn't read what the offer even is? To you, at the moment you made your purchase, all you were promised was A ) mystery, B ) possibly being upset per the checkbox. You were provided with both.
Because @Jab wants the hard number of each prize, do you have it?
And there is another important question have been repeated many times in this thread is that how do you decide to put the initial buyers in the worst batch instead of give everyone a fair chance to lottery the prizes? Of course it’s still okay because it’s a ‘mystery’ for buyers but that break their faith to believe you operating business in a good manner
That was me. I approved the Mystery Box offer. The deal was that the average plan had to average X cores, X RAM, X disk, and X transfer. To make some good, and better than good deals, there had to be some bad ones. The plans were set more than a week before the offer link was leaked, and the order never changed from what was originally set up. Not knowing how many plans would sell, the good, bad, and better deals were mixed up. The worse plans were clearly stated in the offer so people would know what the down side was. It seemed fair to me. After the offer link went up on the other forum without the offer verbiage and people started buying early, it also seemed like poetic justice. In this case it turned out that the line they were cutting to the front of was for a figurative firing squad.
I agree with @msatt we should all try to rise above belittling people, but I also agree that people that purchased a Mystery Box offer should not overly complain about getting a poor VM, because the counter balance to that is someone else received a good or better VM because we did not.
@HiEndSoul said:
And there is another important question have been repeated many times in this thread is that how do you decide to put the initial buyers in the worst batch instead of give everyone a fair chance to lottery the prizes? Of course it’s still okay because it’s a ‘mystery’ for buyers but that break their faith to believe you operating business in a good manner
I bought my mystery box shortly after the link was posted here, WELL before the terms were announced, and I was still late enough that I was in sku2's group, missing the 128mb package. There couldn't have been THAT many people in the first wave, seems pretty fair to me. I fully expected to get something unusable, it's gambling, I'm not sure what you expected. They can't all be winners.
@bakageta said: I bought my mystery box shortly after the link was posted here, WELL before the terms were announced, and I was still late enough that I was in sku2's group, missing the 128mb package. There couldn't have been THAT many people in the first wave,
Counter-argument!1onoeneone
keyword is >posted here<, China is probably like 1.6 billion people now - only if 1% (many?! ) bought it before it was re-re-posted to LES then you were laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate.
@Nekki said: Disagree, we should mock the dumb when they come to complain about the results of doing dumb things.
But that is my point - people do make dumb decisions and so do companies.
LES should not be the place to come to be ridiculed, I agree it should not be the place to expect to be told you did the right thing when you didn't.
The key to all of this is getting a balance.
I have seen many of your comments and like most of them in fact they are often very 'mind (although you would say something else) expanding. My comment was certainly not aimed at you.
This thread is going down the route of lets stop someone from crying and bash them - The OP has an opinion and as you have said to me you disagree with my comment, that is fine. But others on here disagree and push things too far.
As I have said if people want drama go to LET and let jbilloh enjoy the feedback.
LES should be better than that.
So counterpoint; the OP hasn't come here just to complain and be butthurt about a bad decision, they've come here to smear and besmirch a provider's rep on the basis of a bad decision they made due to their own greed and FOMO.
@Virmach were trying to do something entertaining for BF which, let's face it, is now a pale shadow of what it once was. They don't deserve to have their name dragged through the mud for that, in my opinion.
So if balance is what's desired, if we don't want LES to be LET (and for my money, I wish it was a little bit more LET because LES is really boring most of the time), then consumers shouldn't be ripping providers new ones for their own bad choices.
@VirMach said:
Therefore we did learn from our mistake but to me, it sounds like you didn't learn from your mistake if you experienced two VirMach IP changes. The firs time? Maybe you made a mistake, but the second time?
Let me clear that for you. You changed the IP for 3 of VPS services, twice, within a few months, within the same billing cycle. That means that each VPS had exactly 3 different IP addresses this year. Show me one provider here or anywhere that did this at least once, not twice like you did. I personally never had this experience until you, and I owned services from over 50 providers, both bigger and smaller than you.
I learned my lesson, I'll never buy or renew your services and I'll make sure to drop the exact review that you deserve. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'll give credit where credit is due, unbeatable prices. Quality? Not great, not terrible. Reliability? Coin flip for the results.
Gambling, the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor’s miscalculation.
@Wednesday said: Gambling, the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor’s miscalculation.
i haven't seen you a long time.
where have you been?
with all the boob's gif here and there .... i can hear you say "well it really tells how was bottle fed!"
@legendary said: Is it not sociopathical to offer services which you know is not usable? Waste of IP? Why do that?
What "not usable"? May not work for your case but it works fine.
Could you provide example of usage for server with 128mb ram and 64-bit Debian 12?
I was using mine as a nebula lighthouse.
Yes, you was. Nowadays Debian 12 comes with ridiculous minimum 512mb ram req. So 128 is far from enough to keep OS alive, without any world facing apps.
@legendary said: Is it not sociopathical to offer services which you know is not usable? Waste of IP? Why do that?
What "not usable"? May not work for your case but it works fine.
Could you provide example of usage for server with 128mb ram and 64-bit Debian 12?
I was using mine as a nebula lighthouse.
Yes, you was. Nowadays Debian 12 comes with ridiculous minimum 512mb ram req. So 128 is far from enough to keep OS alive, without any world facing apps.
And? So don't run 12. Which part of what I said is incorrect?
@legendary said: Is it not sociopathical to offer services which you know is not usable? Waste of IP? Why do that?
What "not usable"? May not work for your case but it works fine.
Could you provide example of usage for server with 128mb ram and 64-bit Debian 12?
I was using mine as a nebula lighthouse.
Yes, you was. Nowadays Debian 12 comes with ridiculous minimum 512mb ram req. So 128 is far from enough to keep OS alive, without any world facing apps.
And? So don't run 12. Which part of what I said is incorrect?
What?! To deprive one running newest Debian is blasphemy!
On a serious note: you know that virmache is shit, don't encourage them to behave even worse.
@Wednesday said: Gambling, the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor’s miscalculation.
i haven't seen you a long time.
where have you been?
with all the boob's gif here and there .... i can hear you say "well it really tells how was bottle fed!"
You made the mistake of buying a mystery box (in plain English- stupid) from the Elon Musk of low end hosting (who apparently enjoys and revels in the multi year chaos that is his company).
And? So don't run 12. Which part of what I said is incorrect?
What?! To deprive one running newest Debian is blasphemy!
On a serious note: you know that virmache is shit, don't encourage them to behave even worse.
I'm not destined to be in this conversation much longer but I truly don't see a problem. I'm not a provider but if someone scraped my non-advertised sale and a bunch of lunatics bought it, a) from a rando web link, b) before the sale even started, c) without knowing what it was, and d) with a warning label saying you may well be upset, I might have intentionally given them 64MB instances as a disincentive to do it again next time.
Comments
But that is my point - people do make dumb decisions and so do companies.
LES should not be the place to come to be ridiculed, I agree it should not be the place to expect to be told you did the right thing when you didn't.
The key to all of this is getting a balance.
I have seen many of your comments and like most of them in fact they are often very 'mind (although you would say something else) expanding. My comment was certainly not aimed at you.
This thread is going down the route of lets stop someone from crying and bash them - The OP has an opinion and as you have said to me you disagree with my comment, that is fine. But others on here disagree and push things too far.
As I have said if people want drama go to LET and let jbilloh enjoy the feedback.
LES should be better than that.
I think the other person is suggesting that more people were upset than happy, so feels that this was unfair.
You must also understand that you wrote the rules (particularly the location selection) to be obscure. You knew how the 'deal' was going to work and explained it clearly (in your own opinion). Others interpret things differently - that is the problem with our language and I completely agree it can't be solved. But once again hammering someone because they checked boxes saying things like 'possibly' also means possibly not.
Because @Jab wants the hard number of each prize, do you have it?
And there is another important question have been repeated many times in this thread is that how do you decide to put the initial buyers in the worst batch instead of give everyone a fair chance to lottery the prizes? Of course it’s still okay because it’s a ‘mystery’ for buyers but that break their faith to believe you operating business in a good manner
Oh neat, looks like I got bumped to a 640mb/25gb/2tb, that's actually perfectly usable. Not exactly a big winner, but definitely better than I expected.
As far as I could tell, the provider made no guarantees about the distribution ratio of resource brackets or the odds of getting a VPS at the higher end of resource configuration. If it was a non-working product, it would be a different story, but "almost not usable" sounds like it is still usable at the minimum configuration, after uptime, network connectivity and other factors are accounted for.
Those that rushed to buy without knowing the details will hopefully learn the difference between trusting a provider, and having expectations about a product without reviewing the plain terms of what is being offered. Reading helps align expectations and reduce the chances of disappointment, saving both buyer and provider time/grief.
Random in this case could have meant non-selective rather than RNG seeding randomness. Somewhere along the way, someone else would get the minimum one, if all plans were sold. That much was clear from the offer terms, it specifically said the VPS configurations were preset.
Not a Virmach customer, just another forum member looking at the situation.
Oh, I don't want those numbers from @VirMach. I know how gambling works, I trust LES&VirMach staff that they made it 'balanced'.
I wanted those numbers from you, you were speaking about
manyand I wanted to know how many is many and if you even know or just throwing thatmanybecause bias. 1 out of 100? 50 out of 250? 10 out of 200? 15 out of 500?And to answer the question: why it wasn't RNG "per order" and in batches/ranks - manual labor - it's easier to deploy 20-30 orders in a row for the same specs than filling all that things one by one each time [plus knowing human nature this would end with some typos, broken specs, drama].
Plus have you ever asked how those batches/ranks were awarded/selected in first place? What if it was RNG and with different roll it would end that SKU #1 was the BEST ONE, for like first 5 people? You just assumed that VirMach was there to punish you.
I understand the anger [I would be little pissed off too if I would get 128MB, however I know that it could be there, it was nicely listed in the post], but please stop "projecting" and assuming everyone is there to get you/punish you/hates you. Use facts, numbers, make an informed decision.
Haven't bought a single service in VirMach Great Ryzen 2022 - 2023 Flash Sale.
https://lowendspirit.com/uploads/editor/gi/ippw0lcmqowk.png
Checkbox gives right to complaint. Express dissapointment. Emanate rage. Exude emotion.
If a user tick the checkbox it does not mean he has no right to express his feelings towards checkbox creator. And no, checkbox does not void "crap services" from the equation.
That was me. I approved the Mystery Box offer. The deal was that the average plan had to average X cores, X RAM, X disk, and X transfer. To make some good, and better than good deals, there had to be some bad ones. The plans were set more than a week before the offer link was leaked, and the order never changed from what was originally set up. Not knowing how many plans would sell, the good, bad, and better deals were mixed up. The worse plans were clearly stated in the offer so people would know what the down side was. It seemed fair to me. After the offer link went up on the other forum without the offer verbiage and people started buying early, it also seemed like poetic justice. In this case it turned out that the line they were cutting to the front of was for a figurative firing squad.
I agree with @msatt we should all try to rise above belittling people, but I also agree that people that purchased a Mystery Box offer should not overly complain about getting a poor VM, because the counter balance to that is someone else received a good or better VM because we did not.
For staff assistance or support issues please use the helpdesk ticket system at https://support.lowendspirit.com/index.php?a=add
I bought my mystery box shortly after the link was posted here, WELL before the terms were announced, and I was still late enough that I was in sku2's group, missing the 128mb package. There couldn't have been THAT many people in the first wave, seems pretty fair to me. I fully expected to get something unusable, it's gambling, I'm not sure what you expected. They can't all be winners.
Counter-argument!1onoeneone
) bought it before it was re-re-posted to LES then you were laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate.
keyword is >posted here<, China is probably like 1.6 billion people now - only if 1% (
many?!Haven't bought a single service in VirMach Great Ryzen 2022 - 2023 Flash Sale.
https://lowendspirit.com/uploads/editor/gi/ippw0lcmqowk.png
Is it not sociopathical to offer services which you know is not usable? Waste of IP? Why do that?
Think of it as a blind date that epically failed expectations. Sack up and move on.
So counterpoint; the OP hasn't come here just to complain and be butthurt about a bad decision, they've come here to smear and besmirch a provider's rep on the basis of a bad decision they made due to their own greed and FOMO.
@Virmach were trying to do something entertaining for BF which, let's face it, is now a pale shadow of what it once was. They don't deserve to have their name dragged through the mud for that, in my opinion.
So if balance is what's desired, if we don't want LES to be LET (and for my money, I wish it was a little bit more LET because LES is really boring most of the time), then consumers shouldn't be ripping providers new ones for their own bad choices.
BANTER
What "not usable"? May not work for your case but it works fine.
Could you provide example of usage for server with 128mb ram and 64-bit Debian 12?
Let me clear that for you. You changed the IP for 3 of VPS services, twice, within a few months, within the same billing cycle. That means that each VPS had exactly 3 different IP addresses this year. Show me one provider here or anywhere that did this at least once, not twice like you did. I personally never had this experience until you, and I owned services from over 50 providers, both bigger and smaller than you.
I learned my lesson, I'll never buy or renew your services and I'll make sure to drop the exact review that you deserve. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'll give credit where credit is due, unbeatable prices. Quality? Not great, not terrible. Reliability? Coin flip for the results.
Gambling, the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor’s miscalculation.
are you drunk @Otus9051 tonight ? or is this someone else posting on your behalf ?
I know you an angel .... now you sound like Hmmmm ... like @Jab
@Jab did you hack his account?
i haven't seen you a long time.
where have you been?
with all the boob's gif here and there .... i can hear you say "well it really tells how was bottle fed!"
I was using mine as a nebula lighthouse.
From memory, @Nyr's Wireguard road warrior runs happily in 128MB.
Yes, you was. Nowadays Debian 12 comes with ridiculous minimum 512mb ram req. So 128 is far from enough to keep OS alive, without any world facing apps.
And? So don't run 12. Which part of what I said is incorrect?
What?! To deprive one running newest Debian is blasphemy!
On a serious note: you know that virmache is shit, don't encourage them to behave even worse.
You made the mistake of buying a mystery box (in plain English- stupid) from the Elon Musk of low end hosting (who apparently enjoys and revels in the multi year chaos that is his company).
Somewhere common sense got lost
I should add a mystery box to microLXC.
Worth the drama.
Free NAT KVM | Free NAT LXC | Bobr
ITS WEDNESDAY MY DUDES
I'm not destined to be in this conversation much longer but I truly don't see a problem. I'm not a provider but if someone scraped my non-advertised sale and a bunch of lunatics bought it, a) from a rando web link, b) before the sale even started, c) without knowing what it was, and d) with a warning label saying you may well be upset, I might have intentionally given them 64MB instances as a disincentive to do it again next time.
Ooo, you will start new version of "post your invoice number to double your peenus"...