Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com> writes: > Quoting Troy Johnson (Troy.A.Johnson at state.mn.us): > > If I understand correctly, Bob, you are saying that the services most Linux > users could do without (colocation-wise) are icing on the cake of Real-Time's > colocation costs. And it might be that cut-rate service isn't what Real Time is > all about. > > > In a nut-shell. > > I "feel" the need for cheap co-lo. BUT I don't want to offer cut-rate service. > That is why I was looking at the S390. > > Ok, the box is not cheap, but it scales. It would be awesome to give linux-vms > for $50/month AND still keep good service. Having kicked into this thread prviously, I should add that I *do* see why real-time might not want to be involved in providing "sub-standard" service. And of course there's always potential for confusion in such situations. I doubt it's feasible for enough people to band together in a coop to afford a T3, though, and T1 compares rather unfavorably to DSL price-performance. So I don't know if the obvious alternative could be done either. -- David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / dd-b at dd-b.net SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/ Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/