"Cloud Computing" Does Not Mean Safety
Safety is a fundamentally relative concept. Consider, in computing, scenarios or factors like these:
- Can all your systems be easily transferred from one provider to another? (With "Cloud Computing", vendor lock-in is often intentional)
- How robust are your systems inside one particular provider? (There are many reasons tech can fail, even under perfect supervision/conditions)
- Are all fire-proof? (Fires can start from external places, too)
This was just weeks ago:
This past weekend I purchased another fire extinguisher (not the first), so in addition to alarms there is capacity to deal with fires without having to wait for outside intervention. In addition, our sites are backed up to more than 3 physical locations. Having posted 35 new pages yesterday (even more than in Tux Machines, being robust to any kind of censorship is important to us. This was refined over the years and decades.
Earlier this month rms (Richard Stallman) spoke in a bunker or a cave in Sweden (Bahnhof AB, where Wikileaks used to be). We shared a short clip of his talk there. It was attended by almost 700 people - a similar number to Rome a week later (last night in Munich he said he nearly ran out of gratis stickers because his Rome talk was so well attended).
Bahnhof AB, still a robust host with (what we assume to be) many clients, should not be the exception but the norm. In a world of dictators, like today's world, one must never trust GAFAM or Americans or even a European providers of "Cloud Computing". Remember how a French hosting provider that uses the buzzword/s "Cloud Computing" went up in a cloud of smoke. It wasn't deliberate, but the net effect was terrible and whose fault it was does not matter much.
Fault tolerance is related to the notion of software freedom. Trust yourself more than your trust others and know your friends; you're not a "consumer". █
Earlier this year:
