[Date Prev][Date
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date
Index][Thread Index]
Re: O2 Hoster down ?
- To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: O2 Hoster down ?
- From: "aashram2000" <groups@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 13:05:56 -0000
- Mailing-list: list ukha_d@xxxxxxx; contact
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
- Reply-to: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
chris what did you mean it will affect 02 users ?
you have me worried now. Does this have something
to do with the special discount for ukha users ?
--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, Tony Lucas <tony@x> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mark_harrison_uk2 [mailto:mph@xxxxxxx...]
> > Sent: 09 May 2003 11:41
> > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: [ukha_d] Re: O2 Hoster down ?
> >=20
> >=20
> > I guess, as Gerard says, it depends on the nature of the site.
> >=20
> > For a transactional site, the ONLY defintion that typically=20
matters=20
> > to the client is "can this site take customers' credit
card=20
details=20
> > securely"...
> >=20
> > ... everything else, like "showing them something that makes
them=20
> > want to hand over their credit card details" is a subsidiary
step=20
to=20
> > that.
> >=20
> > For ascentium.co.uk - my own company's, static, informational
web-
> > site, then frankly O2hoster is good enough.
> >=20
> > For some of the big sites I've been responsible for, a budget
of=20
> > =A310k / month isn't enough to guarantee 100% availability of
a=20
complex=20
> > transactional site.
> >=20
>=20
> I couldn't agree more, the only problem we have now is convincing=20
them
> that they do need to spend x amount to get the service to fit their
> requirements, and they cant expect 100% reliability for complex=20
sites
> for what can realistically be a fistful of change.....
>=20
> Oh the fun we have :o)
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Tony.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index
|