In my case I thought I had, but when I checked it hadn't remembered the setting.
Not surprising, I get so many 503 errors from the site's broken cache.
Kinda pathetic it is supposedly a site for nerds, but there is no sysadmin... or if there is, please, nobody out their handle, they don't to be as embarrassed as they should be. I'd be more forgiving if there was a giant "sysadmins needed please volunteer" or something on the front page. Then I'd think, well, nobody wants to help so they're doing the best they can.
I know in my experience as a sysadmin, users should not get lame cache errors. It proves the site is being run by somebody that doesn't know how to configure a webserver, and isn't taking the error log seriously. The first day there were cache errors, it should have been fixed by changing the broken part of the configuration; e.g. when a backend fails, the front end should use one that is working. This generally happens automatically if you're using something like apache proxy balancer in the front, and mainstream tools in the back.
We had approximately 20 minutes where the site was flopping on and off today due to trying to properly fix the portscanning bug (the feature wasn't fully disabled, and had to push a fix which made thing worse before getting it properly fixed).
I got some about 3 hours ago. First the site was totally down. Then it was half-working, with several 503s.
I didn't notice anything at http://status.soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] - I wonder if it's worth having a "most recent website problem" entry on that page permanently, so that we can check you were aware of any apparently temporary problems we've encountered. OTOH, maybe it's not a big deal at this stage in the site's development.
Linode switch went out, the site was inaccessible for approximately 30-45 minutes, and then I have to scrape Apache's remains and bring it back to life.
It's showing as checked for me and no email here either, or entries in my email server logs to indicate it might have been bounced for that matter. Oh well, not like I've thought of any worthy entries to suggest, and maybe the actual voting emails will arrive OK.
Ah. OK, I see what the problem was; your IP address is blacklisted on some DNSBLs, and if the DNSBL IP address is cached on my local DNS, SMTP won't even say HELO. See for info [mxtoolbox.com] to clear it.
Gah, I had no idea that was even there. No wonder I was never asked to vote, and now it's too late. Do you have stats on the number of people who didn't have it ticked? Maybe time for a second post on the front page highlighting it, and another round of emails.
-- const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cosurgi on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:17PM
Did you check "Willing to Vote" in http://soylentnews.org/my/homepage [soylentnews.org] ?
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 2) by Aighearach on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:36PM
In my case I thought I had, but when I checked it hadn't remembered the setting.
Not surprising, I get so many 503 errors from the site's broken cache.
Kinda pathetic it is supposedly a site for nerds, but there is no sysadmin... or if there is, please, nobody out their handle, they don't to be as embarrassed as they should be. I'd be more forgiving if there was a giant "sysadmins needed please volunteer" or something on the front page. Then I'd think, well, nobody wants to help so they're doing the best they can.
I know in my experience as a sysadmin, users should not get lame cache errors. It proves the site is being run by somebody that doesn't know how to configure a webserver, and isn't taking the error log seriously. The first day there were cache errors, it should have been fixed by changing the broken part of the configuration; e.g. when a backend fails, the front end should use one that is working. This generally happens automatically if you're using something like apache proxy balancer in the front, and mainstream tools in the back.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:42PM
When did you get these?
We had approximately 20 minutes where the site was flopping on and off today due to trying to properly fix the portscanning bug (the feature wasn't fully disabled, and had to push a fix which made thing worse before getting it properly fixed).
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday April 15 2014, @12:48AM
I got some about 3 hours ago. First the site was totally down. Then it was half-working, with several 503s.
I didn't notice anything at http://status.soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org] - I wonder if it's worth having a "most recent website problem" entry on that page permanently, so that we can check you were aware of any apparently temporary problems we've encountered. OTOH, maybe it's not a big deal at this stage in the site's development.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Tuesday April 15 2014, @05:52PM
Linode switch went out, the site was inaccessible for approximately 30-45 minutes, and then I have to scrape Apache's remains and bring it back to life.
Still always moving
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday April 14 2014, @07:03AM
Strange, I've not gotten a single one. Maybe the server saw your user name starts with "Ai" and decided it won't serve an artificial intelligence. :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:26PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by AudioGuy on Monday April 14 2014, @11:27PM
Zocalo, your server seems to be blocking us, I suspect a firewall problem.
Detail from the logs here:
http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=1177&thresh old=-1&commentsort=0&mode=flat&startat=100 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday April 15 2014, @06:20AM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26 2014, @10:10AM
Use it as a weight, but the 100% way you are doing will cause you more problems.
(Score: 5, Informative) by elf on Tuesday April 15 2014, @01:19PM
My first impression was "what mail?" too. I also didn't know there was a setting in preferences to turn this on. Was there a notification on this?
I personally wouldn't want to suggest name, but I'll vote if and when the vote happens. Will there be an opt in for this too?
(Score: 1) by Alien8r on Tuesday May 06 2014, @08:09PM
Same here, until I saw your message I didn't understand what the issue was.
Now I know, I left the willing to vote unchecked for now.
No brain, no pain.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by unitron on Tuesday April 15 2014, @07:40PM
When was that option added to that page and when was the addition announced on the main page?
something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 16 2014, @11:34AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday April 23 2014, @07:33AM
Gah, I had no idea that was even there. No wonder I was never asked to vote, and now it's too late. Do you have stats on the number of people who didn't have it ticked? Maybe time for a second post on the front page highlighting it, and another round of emails.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)