×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon Web Services Launches DNS Service

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the welcome-to-the-holiday-dolldrums dept.

The Internet 146

wiredmikey writes "Amazon Web Services (AWS) today announced a highly available and scalable Domain Name System service designed to give developers and businesses a reliable and cost effective way to route end users to Internet applications. The service, 'Route 53,' effectively connects user requests to infrastructure running in AWS — such as an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud instance, an Amazon Elastic Load Balancer, or an Amazon Simple Storage Service bucket — and can also be used to route users to infrastructure outside of AWS."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

146 comments

We see what you did there Amazon. (5, Insightful)

anom (809433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34459890)

That is all.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460332)

the question is, will it route to wikileaks when under government pressure? Oh right, it'll monetize every website you go to and block anyone the politicians don't like.

I'll pass on this, whenever.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (3, Interesting)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460622)

Exactly, they showed their true colors in the way that they handled the WikiLeaks affair / pressure from the government. Thanks, but NO THANKS Amazon!

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (0)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461220)

Exactly, they showed their true colors in the way that they handled the WikiLeaks affair / pressure from the government. Thanks, but NO THANKS Amazon!

Yes, it's amazing that a US based company would refuse to host content that has been deemed illegal by the US Government. Their terms of use are pretty clear ...or we otherwise determine, in our sole discretion, that you may be using AWS Services for any illegal purpose or in a way that violates the law or violates, infringes, or misappropriates the rights of any third party; (viii) we determine, in our sole discretion, that our provision of any of the Services to you is prohibited by applicable law, or has become impractical or unfeasible for any legal or regulatory reason. The US Gov't has declared that the data is illegal, so it seems that Amazon was well within its rights to enforce their ToU -- especially since they would likely face legal percussions from the US Gov't if they did not take down the content -- or at the very least would be subject to repeated DoS attacks.

While I think Wikileaks is doing the right thing, I don't think there is any dispute that the diplomatic cables were obtained illegally and are not legal for distribution in this country.

What did you expect Amazon to do? Is there another ISP in this country that would keep the content up? Not that it would matter after the US Gov't got their bandwidth provider to pull the plug out of national security concerns.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461718)

It hasn't been "deemed illegal by the US government". That requires a court decision, and the government attorneys haven't even filed charges yet. People are innocent until proven guilty, facts are not established until proven in court. There most certainly are plenty of disputes about whether the publications were legal, on several different bases. But even if it were an "open and shut case", that still requires that the case be opened and then shut, which it hasn't.

Without that due process, Amazon can decide for any reason, like some Senator whining about some bad press, that content or services must be shut down. Due process is important, as is protection from arbitrary denials of services that are paid for and expected to critically support a business operation.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34462006)

I believe it had little to do with the actual content, and a lot to do with having a massive DDoS launched against whoever was hosting Wikileaks. Why take on a client like Wikileaks when you could host another client that doesn't have someone using up GBs of bandwidth a second in dropped packets?

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34462052)

as doc pointed out below - the government declare anything illegal, but until a judge finds that to be true, it ain't.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461324)

I really don't see anything wrong with Amazon's response - they got a complaint, checked on it, and it violated their terms of service. Remember that that wikileaks is hosting STOLEN US PROPERTY, and as much as it is fun to read about it, it was illegally obtained - if this were a pirated software site, we wouldn't blink twice if the DNS provider refused them service.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#34462096)

really?

when was that ever proven in court? What was stolen? Those diplomatic cables were never "exclusive US ownership" - by definition, they are owned by the citizens of the united states, not the government - We pay for these diplos with tax money. Have you ever heard of prior restraint?

oh right, never proven to be illegal or stolen. good job making that leap there, fyi.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (3, Interesting)

camionbleu (1633937) | more than 3 years ago | (#34462126)

Legally, Wikileaks' action is likely protected under the First Amendment. In 1971, the Supreme Court ruled (New York Times v. U.S) that the First Amendment barred the Nixon administration from keeping the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing illegally leaked information related to the Vietnam War. Two other cases (Landmark Communications v. Virginia and Bartnicki v. Vopper) support the view that it is not illegal to publish leaked information, even if the original leaking of that information was illegal.

Of course Amazon is free to as it sees fit, just as we are free to choose whether to buy from Amazon. But let's not add support to Amazon's decision by pretending that this was about "stolen property".

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (1)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460432)

Route 53 - sort of a combination of the famous Route 66 [wikipedia.org] and a 'leet version of S3. ...in case you didn't get it.

Re:We see what you did there Amazon. (1)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461402)

To be honest, I don't think *YOU* got it... leet version of S3, pssh.

Fortunately, the significant stakeholders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460730)

Fortunately, the significant stakeholders don't see it your way.

Spamvertisement (4, Insightful)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34459948)

Cool, thanks for the PR release wiredmikey

Re:Spamvertisement (2)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460024)

The light bill doesn't pay itself.

Taco at least meters them in as opposed to flooding the front page. Unless a new iPod comes out or the like, then all bets are off.

Re:Spamvertisement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460150)

Given the recent news around Amazon and Wikileaks, I'd say this is more like a comment laxative.

Re:Spamvertisement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460692)

Not much of a comment laxative apparently, but then the # of comments in a story seems kinda opposite of what one would expect for a 'geek techy site'
  • Discovered life on moon of Jupiter leads to breakthrough in Quantum Computation and Fusion Technology (54 comments)
  • A mayor of some dinky, backwater, forgotten town says something stupid; all Americans are assumed to share same stupid belief. (572 comments)

Re:Spamvertisement (0)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460512)

I set wiredmikey as Foe - can't stand this kind of s*it.

My first /. Foe ever: gotta go celebrate now.

Does this mean I won't see any more articles submitted by him in the main page?

Re:Spamvertisement (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460970)

Is there some reason the blurb couldn't have just said "Amazon launches new DNS service for sites hosted on their cloud services"?

Re:Spamvertisement (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461112)

They posted it to give us a chance for lulz.

I mean, really. Is ANYONE reading this going to think "what a great idea, I'll just sign my DNS up with Amazon"?

Re:Spamvertisement (1)

ExileOnHoth (53325) | more than 3 years ago | (#34462032)

Fine, I'll bite, I can afford the karma hit.

I've been looking for a new DNS host. And it's funny, I actually clicked on this story thinking I'd get to read some informed comments about the pluses and minuses of Amazon's new service from people who would know.

Amazon "cloud" hosting services - popular with geeks, used by employed developers everywhere.

Slashdot - a place where informed geeks talk about technical matters.

See how I could easily have made that mistake?

But I forgot, sometimes on slashdot the world is divided into "good corporations" (!?) and "evil corporations" and Amazon (for cancelling the account of a high profile customer who was violating their terms of service) has now been labeled "evil" and therefore we can't talk about their technology anymore.

Amazon does stuff I like and stuff I don't. Just like Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, et al. And just about every other corporation in technology.

Are you guys honestly implying that Amazon whipped up and rolled out this new service over the weekend to, like, change the subject re: wikileaks? Perhaps you need to take a step back and look around.

I live in Seattle and know lots of people who work at Amazon. They aren't fascists or CIA agents (as far as I know). They're geeks who program cool stuff and sell it to make a living. Amazon cloud stuff (despite the name) is cool, and of general interest to anyone who does this for a living. A new service from them is of interest to this geek, anyway.

Sheesh, people.

Sounds great for WikiLeaks (3, Insightful)

burki (32245) | more than 3 years ago | (#34459954)

Since EasyDNS couldn't handle them anymore. Oh wait, wasn't there a problem with Amazon to start with?

Imma jump right on this... (5, Insightful)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 3 years ago | (#34459986)

so when they decide they don't like my business model/price structure/web site/looks/colour/wtv they can shut my service down pronto. Yup, thanks Amazon where can I sign up?? Idiots.

Re:Imma jump right on this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460496)

I've got news. So can every other service provider that exists on the internet/web. Unless you're forking out $$$ for hosting and arrangements -- far more than you make in a year -- then you're not paying for guaranteed assurance contracts.

Re:Sounds great for WikiLeaks (2)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460448)

Since EasyDNS couldn't handle them anymore. Oh wait, wasn't there a problem with Amazon to start with?

Yeah, I thought that too. They announced this just after kicking Wikileaks out. It does give you an idea of how reliable that DNS service is.

Screw them.

Re:Sounds great for WikiLeaks (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460806)

Now when we talk about Amazon, we immediately think about the wikileaks debacle. I wonder if this is only because we follow geek news or if the mainstream knows about it. In which case the call to boycott amazon for christmas maybe very effective.

Re:Sounds great for WikiLeaks (1)

Stunt Pope (3287) | more than 3 years ago | (#34462030)

It was NOT easyDNS who "couldn't handle them", jeezus, you must be the LAST person alive on the planet who doesn't know this yet.

EVERYDNS unplugged wikileaks. NOT easyDNS. http://easyurl.net/a3191

In fact, as of yesterday wikileaks.ch ADDED easyDNS to their DNS.

really? (3, Insightful)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460012)

"A reliable, cloud-based DNS service has been one of the most requested offerings by our customers" ... really?

Re:really? (2)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460050)

Well, comcast is going to be *all* over this one...

Re:really? (2)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460352)

Comcast needs to be all over something. Last night was just one of a series of troubles with dns they've had.

Re:really? (1)

Creepy (93888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460962)

yeah - I switched my mom from Comcast to google DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4) when she couldn't get through to support - I wasn't near a computer at the time and I remembered that one off the top of my head.

Re:really? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460274)

Yeah, probably. If you're already running all their services, do you really want to manage BIND or equivalent by yourself? Linode offers DNS for their VM service, I'm sure others do too.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34461172)

Yes, but DNS is the one well-known distributed database online that actually works well, doesn't have much issue with being cloud-based, is low-bandwidth enough not to really need to be cloud-based for most purposes, and would be relatively easy to setup if you wanted to make it cloud-based yourself.

Re:really? (1)

Striikerr (798526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460286)

I have to agree. I evaluated using AWS for some production systems and it's horrible (it felt like it was still in a beta test stage). I would have assumed that the most user requested feature would have been to offer up-to-date server images running on their EBS (non-ephemeral) storage or at least provide a supported method for migrating server images from the instance-based storage to the permanent storage.

Re:really? (1)

nicholas22 (1945330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460632)

"A reliable, cloud-based DNS service has been one of the most requested offerings by our customers" ... really?

That was about 1-2 months ago, but I suspect that with the whole WikiLeaks debacle, those customers are probably looking elsewhere...

Re:really? (0)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460792)

I think many of you are being way too hard on Amazon for this WikiLeaks thing. Considering the US government considers WikiLeaks a terrorist organization, please name one US company that would have not caved. And then tell me what that company is doing to help WikiLeaks.

Re:really? (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461426)

Google.

Re:really? (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461532)

Google has caved to the government on several occasions. What are you smoking?

Re:really? (1)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461816)

I guess you didn't understand. Try to actually google "wikileaks" right now. Take a look at the result. Google is managing where Amazon failed. And I doubt US govt. can actually do anything about this.

Re:really? (1)

dmabram (526984) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460956)

Yes, really, although perhaps the description isn't clear. For users of Amazon's EC2 cloud based servers, it is necessary to configure DNS services externally when firing up new instances. This is a small hassle. Having an integrated service that automagically does correct DNS configurations when new instances are launched and does some routing magic to send users to instances that are geographically close is really great for existing users of EC2.

Hmmm.... (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460100)

The biggest reason I can think of for using an alternative DNS is independence from governments. Since Amazon clearly bows to US government pressure and removed wikileaks [pcworld.com] I see it as a failure on this front.

Re:Hmmm.... (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460126)

To be fair, I'm not sure that they bowed to the US government or all those morons that view Wikileaks as a threat to US national security on par with Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin.

It's hard to say, but the latter probably can exert enough pressure that the US government wouldn't have to. Not that I have any idea which it is.

Re:Hmmm.... (3, Insightful)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460294)

I know it's not normal to read the article on Slashdot, but seriously? Amazon is offering DNS hosting. Think BIND, not OpenDNS or whatever.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461060)

Right. Which is why the original poster said that using an alternative DNS (such as the one proposed by the piratebay founders, among other projects out there) is a good solution to being relieved of the censorship and control of government controlled DNS:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/91415/pirate-bay-co-founder-proposes-alternative-p2p-dns/ [zeropaid.com]

Of course, I'm not sure how that solves the problem. What are there, like three backbones in the nation? Or at worse, at the ISP level, a few ISPs blocking traffic to any non-sanctioned resolver solution would probably block 95% of the traffic in the country, so . . . sort of doesn't really solve anything, when it comes down to it.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461946)

No, that's not what I meant. You and the GP are talking about distributed DNS that a client uses. For example, at home I use my ISP's DNS servers. This is what we want alternative DNS for, and I don't disagree with you. However, Amazon's service is for DNS nameservers. When I own a domain, I point the nameservers at ns1.example.com, ns2.example.com, which officially say that example.com points at 192.168.1.1. This is the service Amazon is hosting. You could do this at several places, but instead of hosting it yourself on your own server using BIND, or depending on someone else externally, you can use Amazon just like you are EC2 for your DNS.

Amen! (2)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460296)

When they fought the one click patent war and bragged otherwise, started publishing stats on what their .com customers were buying, and laughed at my privacy complaint (I have my own .com domain), I dropped them and found that almost everything they have, I can get cheaper elsewhere.

They keep on pulling shenanigans like caving to the government over wikileaks, one excuse after another for being craven cowards and bullies, and I continue to wonder why people trust them.

Very funny, Amazon! ROFLMAO (2)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460130)

Hahahaha! Really, Amazon... *breathless* This is a really good practical joke, seriously. You boot sites from your cloud when someone tells you to and now you want people to trust your DNS! Oh, and yesterday I cancelled my PayPal & Amazon accounts. Keep up the good job! Now we see the true colors of these companies (until now, they were just an educated guess). We see what you did there, Amazon. We all know it. Shame on you.

Re:Very funny, Amazon! ROFLMAO (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460208)

I also will never use Amazon, because they made it clear
that they value money over free speech.

FUCK YOU, Bezos.

Re:Very funny, Amazon! ROFLMAO (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460234)

Uh... I'm sure Bezos is just terrified of losing your and a few other accounts.

And you're just twigging to the nature of large businesses? Ah. Before this you believed them when they said things like "Don't be evil."?

Re:Very funny, Amazon! ROFLMAO (2)

surveyork (1505897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460420)

Say whatever you want. I know I'm insignificant to them, but I felt the need to do something for a change. I'm not the only one. There's also the bad PR. And no, I never completely believed Google's motto. Just look at what they're planning for wireless internet: the end of net neutrality. All companies are evil, some are less evil than others. Have a nice time being cynical and doing nothing. That's why we can't have nice things.

Re:Very funny, Amazon! ROFLMAO (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460462)

It's a cheap way to inflict some small amount of financial loss and to assuage one's consciousness by not supporting the guilty. It's better than nothing, iow. What's your problem?

Unfortunately, their service has some bugs... (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460174)

...bugs like not working when the domain name contains the strings "wiki" and "leaks", and possible others not yet determined.

Yes i think i would use that ... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460180)

after they kicked off wikileaks, like spineless, witless cowards after pressure from some fatass u.s. senator, and lied about it. thankfully easydns directly told what happened to them so that we know precisely who amazon caved in to.

my apps, business, customers are far valuable to risk by using amazon's spineless (tm) services.

Re:Yes i think i would use that ... (0)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460252)

Lets see how YOU hold up when a senator calls you and asks you to do something about one of your customers... oh wait, NOTHING you do is important enough for a senator to take of.

Nevermind....

Re:Yes i think i would use that ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460308)

I've always thought that the politicians were supposed to bend over for the corporations, not the other way around.

Re:Yes i think i would use that ... (2)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460372)

Either way works. They usually are pulling a train that loops around and connects to itself.

The circle of life is thus complete.

Re:Yes i think i would use that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460562)

Circle of shit, you mean.

Re:Yes i think i would use that ... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460568)

i wouldnt do flying fuck. im not american.

Re:Yes i think i would use that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34461900)

If you were, would that change your choice? Because Amazon is, and I for one, don't doubt some very nasty things would start happening to Amazon if they had refused. Do you doubt this? I agree with what wikileaks has done. I wish it hadn't been necessary, but our government is about as opaque as it has ever been, and that's not a good thing. Trust but verify is a good way to live; You don't always know when someone is lying to you, or just plain incompetent, until it is too late. And we can't forget the US government has some history with terrible acts. It isn't like it is inconceivable they are actively doing terrible things even now.

But (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460220)

And will they refuse to list you if they don't like your content?

Re:But (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461092)

Of course they will. So will most domain registrars. Your city meter maid could just sneeze in the direction of most domain registrars and they'd cut your domain. Don't expect pushback from them on your behalf.

Route 53? Not good. (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460240)

I live in Chicago. In the burbs there is a Route 53. It's heavily congested and often under construction. Is this what Amazon is offering?

Re:Route 53? Not good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460680)

I live in Holland, Michigan. There's also a route 53 here. It's well known for the glory holes, where a guy can get an anonymous blowjob, right next door to the geek compound.

Re:Route 53? Not good. (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461352)

I live in Chicago. In the burbs there is a Route 53. It's heavily congested and often under construction. Is this what Amazon is offering?

I live in Holland, Michigan. There's also a route 53 here. It's well known for the glory holes, where a guy can get an anonymous blowjob, right next door to the geek compound.

I hope the Amazon Route 53 is more like the Michigan one - that one sounds much more fun.

DO NOT WANT (5, Insightful)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460256)

Sorry Amazon, DNS needs reliability and has to be *more* free from political involvement, not less freedom and more censorship like you will undoubtedly offer.

Tagged: DONOTWANT

Could be worse: (2)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460314)

Well, it probly was better than Comcast last night in the MidWest.

They promoted equality by failing to return ALL dns queries for several hours.

Trust the cloud! Trust Amazon! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460288)

Lesson learned: the moment they decide they don't like you, they'll throw you out and keep your money. And, if the government decides it wants to know more about you, they won't get a warrant to come to your house, they'll get a warrant for your cloud host to give them access to *their* servers that contain your data.

This is an oppressive regime's wet dream, made reality by subservient, amoral megacorporations. Combine that with the latest in taxpayer-sponsored CCD surveillance and what you have is Orwell's worst nightmare.

So, screw you Amazon, screw your cloud computing services and screw the badly-timed release of your DNS offering.

That is all.

I'm sure it will be useful... (5, Insightful)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460394)

...until they censor your website. Wikileaks is not the only one [wordorigins.org] with a problem.

Re:I'm sure it will be useful... (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461206)

Well, to be honest it's a case of 'what goes around comes around' where publishers are concerned. They've been exploiting writers for years.

Reliable? Ask Wikileaks! (3, Insightful)

rolfc (842110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460446)

I wont touch them anymore.

Re:Reliable? Ask Wikileaks! (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460822)

Not sure why you'd single out Amazon for this. Wikileaks violated their ToS. Any provider will kick you off if you violate their ToS, Amazon just gets the flack because they actually had a high-profile customer that they dropped. It should be taken as a danger of relying on 'the cloud' (i.e. letting someone else control your important infrastructure), rather than specific evidence that Amazon is evil.

Remember boys and girls, putting stuff in the cloud means giving someone else control over the off switch.

Re:Reliable? Ask Wikileaks! (1)

rolfc (842110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460968)

I agree that this is a danger with the cloud in general, but in this case, it was Amazon that kicked out a customer and in this discussion we talk about Amazons new "reliable" service.

Re:Reliable? Ask Wikileaks! (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461004)

How dare they make a business decision. They should be forced to do what we want. This is a free country after all.

Re:Reliable? Ask Wikileaks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34461138)

As far as I am concerned, US is far from a free country.

"When truth is treason, we are in big trouble"

Re:Reliable? Ask Wikileaks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34461672)

Yep, perfect business plan:

1.do not listen to your customers
2....
3.proffit???

Re:Reliable? Ask Wikileaks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34461806)

They can make a business decision. I can decide to take my business elsewhere as a result of that business decision. It's called capitalism.

Nice TOS (1)

formfeed (703859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461828)

Wikileaks violated their ToS

So? Don't give me the business at will crap.

Many picture print services have an anti-blasphemy clause in their ToS. Does that mean, they won't let me print pictures of a bearded guy wearing a turban? Probably not, because Lieberman won't threaten them over that. But it still shouldn't be in their ToS.

The proper way to handle things like Wikileaks would be a court order - expressing the will of the people, open to a legal counter-challenge, and a democratic discussion process.

Not some blacklists, a corrupt politican's personal blackmail, or a company using their ToS to turn citizens into compliant consumers

We had all this crap before. Some time ago one couldn't publish information on birth control, because it was "indecent".
If things have to be removed from public speech, this should happen in a democratic process, not by some self-declared guardians.

Lack of features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460566)

No IPv6
No DNSSEC
No GeoIP coolness

Unless Joe Lieberman doesn't like you. (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460590)

Because his phone call to Amazon will function as a de-facto "internet kill-switch", just as little Joe has always dreamed of having.

Note to all the crybabies out there (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460606)

If you're dumb enough to think that Amazon is some sort of liberty-infringing monster, I've got news for you: EVERY PROVIDER DOES THIS. There's a ToS that you agree to, and 99% of the time hosting "illegal material" is sufficient cause for terminating the contract. For that matter, "drawing negative publicity to the host" is (even if it's not stated) and "making the host network a target of DDoS attacks" is as well...

Reliability? (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460610)

More like a liability! Imagine that, a company constantly dangling (much like GoDaddy and Paypal) some imaginary Terms of Service (need I remind everyone that TOS are of no value in court, they are little more than company wishes of good behavior and traps to get more cash from you) that can cut you off at any point day or night depending on their latest tantrum? No Amazon, you won't have me anymore in any way. Off topic: I started boycotting Amazon and Amazon Marketplace companies, Paypal I cannot boycott yet but will at the next opportunity, I am boycotting companies that registered their domain with GoDaddy, I am of course boycotting GoDaddy and whenever possible registration of US operated TLDs, and I am boycotting generally any American company that seems to be biased.

rjoshi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34460696)

No more trusting amazon for web services. If they can't sustain the DOS (political), how can we trust? Lean from Wikileaks.

Re:rjoshi (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461492)

No more trusting amazon for web services. If they can't sustain the DOS (political), how can we trust? Lean from Wikileaks.

Ok, let's see what we can learn from Wikileaks. To me it sounds like we learned that if you violate the Terms of Use of an ISP, then you lose your website. But I think that you learned that Amazon is bad and some other ISP would have acted differently.

I'll make a deal with you - identify a single ISP within the USA that would be willing to host Wikileaks content at around the same price point as Amazon EC2 (i.e. less than $200/month) and I'll buy the webhosting and mirror the Wikileaks site. If you think the $200 price cap is unreasonable, let me know what a reasonable price would be.

If the site gets shut down and my hosting costs are not refunded, then you pay that portion of the costs.

Sound fair?

Amazon Rolled Over on Wikileaks. A Pox on Amazon! (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460842)

After the way Amazon.com rolled over on Wikileaks, kicking them off their servers, I don't know why anyone would bother with Amazon. They just rolled over instantly and did not even put up a fight.
Julian Assange is the best friend Democracy has. All these so-called news organizations, with their bloated budgets, failed to unearth any of this stuff. To keep their precious "access" the modern TV newsreader does no investigation at all. Instead, we get celebrity news...

Caching (1)

Jamza (1832368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34460990)

Their FAQ says:

Amazon Route 53 is designed to propagate updates ... within 60 seconds under normal conditions.

I normally wouldn't take issue to this, however their wording and context makes it sound like people will be able to see updates within 60 seconds. While it may update on their end within 60 seconds, after your DNS Servers cache, operating system's cache and the browsers cache, you are looking at atleast an hour depending on what setup you have. Fix it Amazon.

Re:Caching (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34461724)

I normally wouldn't take issue to this, however their wording and context makes it sound like people will be able to see updates within 60 seconds. While it may update on their end within 60 seconds, after your DNS Servers cache, operating system's cache and the browsers cache, you are looking at atleast an hour depending on what setup you have. Fix it Amazon.

What is wrong with what they wrote? Route 53 isn't designed for end users who don't understand all of the caching points of DNS entries -- if I swing my DNS entry to point to another server IP, based on what they wrote, I know that within 60 seconds I'll start to see clients hitting that new server. And I know that I'll still see lingering hits at the old IP even after 24 hours.

Amazon has no control over client side caching -- TTL is advisory, not mandatory.

route 53 lacks some important features (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34461594)

- route 53 is not reachable over IPv6 - No DNSSEC - No GeoIP coolness
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...