[mdlug] Naked/"dry loop" DSL and Linux-friendly ISPs

[Daniel Hedlund]

David Favro wrote:
> "Linux-based" should have nothing to do with it... just don't tell them
> what OS is running on the box.  When they tell me, "We don't support
> Linux", I respond: "You don't need to.  *I* support Linux.  All you need
> to do is support your internet connection."

I'm sorry, what I meant by Linux-friendly was an ISP that you can say "I 
run Linux" and not have them freak out.  Every ISP I've been with over 
the last 8-9 years has been *friendly* to Linux but usually local to the 
city/state I'm residing.  I prefer to support ISPs [financially] that 
are cool with Linux, not because I need the customer support 
necessarily.  If there is enough demand for people wanting 
Linux-friendly ISPs rather than hiding the fact, it might eventually 
persuade larger ISPs to move in that direction.


> pr0n-surfer, which is not against the terms).  That said, if by
> "non-commercial" you mean "personal" (as opposed to a large non-profit
> organization), your volume will be low and you are mostly concerned with
> whether they filter the ports.  If not, just do it, don't tell them, and
> they likely won't notice.

By non commercial I mean personal and reasonably low bandwidth.  Again, 
however, I prefer to support ISPs that either openly profess their 
acceptance of having servers on a network and that specifically mention 
they don't block ports, or at least have nothing to the contrary in 
their terms of service.  In the end it's all about supporting the guys 
who what to provide what I want, even if it's a little pricier.

Cheers,

Daniel Hedlund
daniel at digitree.org