The paralysing effect of an internet attack against Twitter has raised questions about the site's apparent fragility. Attacks against accounts maintained by pro-Georgian blogger Cyxymu at a number of social networking sites including Facebook, Blogger and LiveJournal as well as Twitter, and apparently aimed at silencing him, …
Twitter goes twits up!
For crying out loud....
It's a free service which isn't backed by major bucks. How can they afford the kind of protection that those like Google can afford? Give them a break. It's not like the earth stood still while they were out of action.
"... raised questions about the site's apparent fragility ..."
The only question it raises for me is "Who would give a stuff if it fell down and never got back up again?" What exactly bad would happen apart from a bunch of spotty self-interested navel-gazing blog-o-spherical nerds having to go outside and get some fresh air for a change?
Redundancy and Disaster Recovery - Why?
Why in the hell would Twitter need redundancy and disaster recovery plans in place? They don't really generate any significant revenue, they don't store sensitive data; hell, they aren't even a business - Twitter is a free online service whose only purpose is to give otherwise useless people a way to feel relevant.
It looks better on the books as well. This incident will be forgotten about in about 430,000 Tweets (about 1.2 minutes) and Twitter still won't have had to invest millions on redundant infrastructure.
Twitter is looking to get swallowed up at some point and whoever buys it will be buying a brand, not an infrastructure. From a whore yourself out management perspective it's a sound strategy - less overhead, less debt = easier sell, more profit.
So the two security software shills say this couldn't have been caused by something as simple as people clicking on links, but rather must have been something that their products would be able to stop if only more people would buy them...
It's not this meltdown that raised questions about Twitter's stability. Frankly, those of us who were on Twitter before Oprah know that outages like this were pretty commonplace last year, albeit not for the same reason. Twitter used to go down for hours every week or so - so *this* isn't raising questions about anything. It's nothing we haven't already known.
I should also add that Facebook also suffered severe problems yesterday as a result of this attack. While the site didn't go down all the way, it was broken/useless for most people using it, the API was busted, and even something as simple as posting a status update would fail with network errors or the connection would be interrupted before it could finish loading.
Any website using Facebook Connect was unable to authenticate.
So basically, Facebook *was* down too.
Twitter wasn't the only one that felt this, and Facebook, frankly, has a larger userbase, a business model and a lot of money. They arguably should have been in a better position to handle this quickly.
Errr Ummm Makes Sense
"Twitter meltdown raises questions about site stability"
Well its users are unstable... Why should the site be any different...
Heh. The 'lolplaying' add-ons to Twitter ... 140 Mafia ... Ninjaclash ... etc ... are all still inaccessible today. They have been down since midafternoon yesterday.
Nonny because of posting from 'work' obviously!
I wonder if they've fixed their scaling problems yet?
....Twitter's site stability raises questions about it site stability.
So it was the Russians?
I've seen a few people get blamed across the media. The three main suspects are detailed over at www.unmemorabletitle.co.uk
sick and tried of russians
Worldwide assasinations. Now they want to take the world's websites down. Anyone else getting sick and tried of the Russians? Since they attack the world in their quest to silence their critics, they make themselves fair game by internet standards. Simple as that.
Who would really care
Seriously, who would really care if Twitter was stable or not? Plainly not a lot of people on here.
It's a free service, as pointed out and isnt really that important in the grand scheme of things.
Teh internets haz just went >bing<!
I loves it.
Who says it was the Russians?
It's easy to blame the "obvious villain", but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody was trying to make the Russians (or a Russian) look like baddies.
The real villains, of course, are the refusniks who keep on running Windows day in and day out, letting themselves get infected with some Goddam Ruskie malware, which is then used against noble Western web sites. If they were using Linux zzzzzzzz.
does anyone actually give a ****?
Twitter as David Cameron rightly said is for tw*ts...
Shouting at pigeons.
Imagine the tramp in your town square being prevented from ranting at all & sundry for a day or so. He'll just drink more methylated spirit while Tweeple turn to lager, sherry or whisky.
We're no different...
Paris because I'd rather spend the downtime with her.
The paralysing effect of an internet attack against Twitter has raised questions about ...
... who really gives a shit about Twitter!
If it served any useful purpose apart from allowing Twits to babble about what happens to be going through their minds at that particular moment, perhaps someone might actually give a damn.
One of the things Ford Prefect found hard to understand about human beings was their habit of continually stating and re-stating the very, very obvious, as in: “It’s a nice day”, “You’re very tall” or “So this is it; we are going to die”.
At first, Ford formed a theory to account for this strange behaviour. ‘If human beings don’t keep exercising their lips’ he thought ‘their mouths probably seize up’. After a while he abandoned this theory in favour of a new one. ‘If they don’t keep exercising their lips’ he thought ‘their brains start working’...
Well, Ford, you were close...!
If only the Iranian government had known...
I imagine a botnet comes pretty cheap these days...
was Twitter a serious and important device in our world!?
What next, oh noes FacePalm has gone tits up! I cant see what bob/john/jane/sarah has been doing for the last 5 minutes!!!!! one one !111 !! etc
Come on, this is not news, if it is then ..... meh ...... I might spend *all* my time on B3ta...
Emblem of Generation Y
I refuse to use Twitter, and can't see why it's thought of as a revolutionary communication medium--it's just Instant Messaging on the web. Much like how "podcasting" is recorded audio with the twist of being downloaded onto on iPod.
The biggest fans of all this Web 2.0 garbage seem to be the twenty-something Generation Y crowd, who really believe their Tweets are important and the entire world should hear about it.
Listening to them talk, things like Twitter are redefining our very social consciousness, stopping global warming, and giving meaning to their lives. They'll hail about how great and revolutionary it is until they find the next oh-cool app and forget all about it.
Meanwhile other things get neglected, such as interacting in the real world and the working at their job. Twitter, may you fade quickly into the oblivion.
... LiveJournal seemed to be far more badly affected than Twitter was. But I guess it's not fashionable to talk about LiveJournal, so Twitter gets all the coverage even though it actually didn't hold up too badly under the circumstances.
Re: For crying out loud.
I totally agree. How can a free service like Twitter possibly provide the levels of protection of Google who charge every time you use one of their services.............oh...........hang on a minute.
I'm sorry, there appears to be a slight flaw in your apologist argument.
- Tricked by satire? Get all your news from Facebook? You're in luck, dummy
- Feature TV transport tech, part 1: From server to sofa at the touch of a button
- Google straps on Jetpac: An app to find hipsters, women in foreign cities
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?