No I did not. Because what I host doesn't require that degree of uptime and physical security. I listed many options that may or may not be appropriate to the original poster. The OP didn't make clear what his hosting needs were, so my suggestions were a bit of a shotgun approach.

Obviously there are things that hosting in a real data center can do that one can't do at home. You just need to figure out what your needs and your resources are.

If you have some reason that you haven't moved to a different provider, at least let the rest of us know who to avoid. Name and shame, please.

As others have pointed out

• If they have physical access, you can make things a bit tougher for them, but never impossible
• If all they wanted was access to your logs, then create a user for your providers that is in a group that can read your logs
• Check with your local ISPs to see if you can get a business account (for a static IP address) and self-host. I'm fortunate enough to have FiOS where I live, and while Verizon is really confused about having a business account at a residence, the headache is worth it. I've got about an hour's worth of UPS at home.
• At least consider the possibility that your diagnosis is wrong. Maybe you've been rooted maliciously and not by your provider. Or maybe what's going on is your own misconfiguration. At least be open to this possibility (and so give them access to your logs to assist in diagnosis).
• And, of course, consider changed providers.

Oh well. I always get "még" and "mar" confused. I was trying to say, "It already is", but I guess I got it wrong.

Meg is van.

I'm unable to understand the main post (too much legal and technical jargon for my largely forgotten Hungarian knowledge), but I can read many of the comments.

Someone specifically asked about docx and a comment reply said that docx would be allowed because of the ISO decision (in which Hungary supported making docx an ISO standard). Both the query and response were from ACs, but the response certainly seems plausible to me.

The story of Hungary's ultimate support for Microsoft in the ISO is a long and twisted tale which I was only able to partially follow.

I've tried to take a look at it, but my ability to read Hungarian, particular legal documents, is limited.

What isn't clear to me is would this rule out MS-Word documents for government communication? What about PDFs?

I've sampled pizza on three of the continents mentioned, but as it turns out I think the best pizza I've had was in New Haven, Connecticut. That is also happens to be on the continent where I currently reside (though I'm far from New Haven).

There is a big difference between keeping logs for a service you are running and doing deep packet inspection. And if our ISPs are doing that, then Google is the least of our worries with respect to privacy.

When I first read about this, I immediately thought about datamining. But after another second, I figured that I would prefer Google to have this information than Verizon (where my caching DNS server currently forwards to). It is true that Google is better at datamining, but do keep in mind that whoever is providing your DNS service has the information about your DNS requests.

Another difference between Google and your ISP is that your ISP knows who you are from your IP address. So they can link DNS resolution requests to specific, named, customers. Google can't do that directly.

Porn consumption is higher (PDF) in the more religious states.

The subject line has it right. Without knowing what you plan to use the system for and in what kind of environment it will be in there is absolutely no way to advise you. Indeed the article itself reeks of flamebait.

That said, I can say that I am extremely happy with FreeBSD, but I haven't played with OpenSolaris so I can't make any claims that FreeBSD is better. One of the reasons that I moved to FreeBSD (from Linux) was the more coherent administration. Every Linux distribution that I tried always tacked on a set of system administration/configuration tools that could do 90% of what I needed, but not the rest. But if I tried to do things by editing configuration files manually, sometimes the system tools would step on what I did. With FreeBSD it's pretty much all done by hand editing configuration files (except for user management, where one should let pw(1) edit the files for you). So I find that much easier to maintain.

As mentioned, the ports system is great. I find this the best package management system I've used to date. And it is easy to add a port when needed; so if I need something that isn't in ports, I can create my own port for it (which will deal with dependencies for me) and submit it.

ZFS is now fully supported in FreeBSD8. I haven't used it. I was disappointed that ZFS was not developed for OS X because I was hoping to have a truly native common filesystem I could use both on my servers and desktop. (OS X can cope with UFS, but only in a limited way).

Another things that is nice about FreeBSD (and is presumably true about OpenSolaris as well) is that the base system and the kernel are maintained by the same team. That is, these are full operating systems instead of just a kernel in need of a distribution.

The parent provides some good argument for using OpenSolaris. I'm not disputing those, but the choice depends on your particular needs

I did some limited follow-up experimentation. (and remember, I had explored other possibilities before coming to my conclusion). So while I can't be certain that I ruled out every alternative, I am fairly confident with the broad outlines of my conclusion.

More experimentation would be needed to determine exactly what characteristics of encoding, compression, transfer, etc play a role. So I won't swear that bit rate is the crucial factor.

Most importantly the thing to remember is that my experience describes my ears and my gear. So I'm not disputing claims that many people don't hear a difference. On the other hand, the fact that I noticed an enormous difference even though I wasn't looking for one suggests that sometimes the quality differences can be substantial.

I had been buying things from iTunes (128kbps AAC) and noticed no problems in my car or with my cheap computer speakers (with various computer noises in the room). I had, however, burned a few disks from iTunes and played them on my low end component system. Again, all was reasonably well until I played classical music that way.

When I first played downloaded classical music on that system I thought that something was broken. It was truly and horribly unlistenable. It took me a while to isolate the problem, but after other disks played fine and this disk played "fine" in my computer and car I finally figured out what the problem was.

Between that time and the introduction of iTunes+ (256kbps AAC) I stopped getting compressed classical (and some jazz) tracks.

What was so surprising about this experience is that (a) I hadn't set it up as a test of my hearing, but I noticed the difference entirely spontaneously. Indeed it hadn't even occurred to me that this might be an issue. And (b) I don't at all consider myself to be an audiophile. My hearing really isn't all that good.

The lesson is that what matters is what you hear with your music in your listening environment. In my most common listening environments it's all good. And with most of my music it's all good. But with a small subset of my music in one of my listening environments, bit rates can make the difference between unlistenable to perfectly enjoyable.