4 ms·
Setting up a remote digital workspace
- willeh 11y agoI might be irrational but these "someone on the internet is wrong" style articles are terribly unengaging.
- kctess5 11y agoSeriously. "My way is better than your way because I think it's easier" pat yourself on the back.
- titpetric 11y agoMy way is better because it's more reliable. Sometimes easier is just a side benefit. For OP's article complexity is reduced, reliability is better and price point stays the same (seeing how he already pays about the same for a bare metal server). I am sorry, sometimes an opinion is just an opinion, and other times somebody IS just wrong. There's benefit in any approach, but there is always a better way. Coming from someone who had the same shitty remote setup with RPis, I have enough experience to advise a better way.
- kctess5 11y agoFair enough, there are some real benefits, but sometimes people do things just because they like doing them that way. The original person says "the setup I present here is simply what works well for me personally..." Seems kinda overkill to make an entire blog post because you don't think someone did something the most optimal way ever with 1000% uptime. edit: contrary opinions are good and encourage discussion, but framing it as "you are wrong and you need to change your mindset" doesn't necessarily support that goal IMO.
- titpetric 11y agoOk, some guy has a setup which works for him personally. Yet he decides to write a post about it titled "set up your remote office", advocating his view to others. It's like advocating sex, without sex education. Sure, I might have pointed out that basically every one of his ideas is prone to failure. Aggressively. Or passionately. If you're planing to work remotely, you need to consider things like: - uptime, SLA - redundancy (network, electricity, hardware, storage) I'm not saying oh let's throw $10k and make a home datacenter with running costs at about $500/mo, but If I did, I'd gladly advocate it over an ISP-provided AP and educational low-end hardware. There's just a middle ground which is just as feasible and effective regarding cost & your time. And I could go on. Years of remote work, and failures which are inevitable, have made me cautious. If you wanted a good remote work environment, you'd better come to me for suggestions than to use Ivan's "bragging rights" setup. Still not sure what's there to brag about. Linux today runs just about anywhere, even trashcans.
- titpetric 11y agoSource for "linux runs on trashcans": https://twitter.com/bennunney/status/320473828545421312 https://twitter.com/bennunney/status/320473828545421312
- pixelbash 11y agoHaving tried both I finally settled on the use of a home server with a few vagrant boxes, live editing the same setup as production sold it for me. Albeit in my case all it does is dev, so the content is generally duplicated from elsewhere.
- titpetric 11y agoHome servers are not bad per-se. Personally, if I am fine with power outages, non-redundant uplinks, I'd just go with a 8 core cpu board so I can run proper virtualization. If your laptop is not powerful enough that is - there's a thing to be said for taking your dev environment with you.
- simonjgreen 11y agoTalks about possible loss then suggests running on digital ocean. Heh.
- titpetric 11y agoI have good experience. And I suggested ANY (google, amazon, azure) vm if your requirements are higher. And as in comparison with a bare metal server with 1 disk no SAN/RAID, yeah, better.