4 ms·

> But, if you're set on hosting your own, it isn't so bad these days. +1. Exactly what I wanted to say. Back in sourceforge days setting up your own internet

> But, if you're set on hosting your own, it isn't so bad these days. +1. Exactly what I wanted to say. Back in sourceforge days setting up your own internet server to run the central repo was a big hurdle. Solving that and mailing list and the bug tracker was a nice relief. These days you can set up your own server in very short time for minuscule amount of money.

DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
Increasingly companies are shedding on-prem infrastructure. One startup I was at har everyone work exclusively on laptops (though with docking stations and monitors) and had a policy where everyone had to take their computers home every night - nothing to steal. Everything was Cloud-hosted on AWS, Atlassian, GitHub and Dropbox. To my surprise it worked quite well - the only issue was working with large files because we had no NAS/file-server and only ~10mbps upstream. Not having to pay for any on-site sysadmin definetly saved the company money - even more-so when you consider there was no physical servers to break either.
- paulryanrogers 10y ago
  "...consider there was no physical servers to break either." Consider that the cloud they did rely upon was comprised of other people's computers.
  - DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
    The point of "the cloud" isn't just global accessibility, but also massive redundancy - Azure Storage and S3 both replicate data globally in case of data-center meteor impacts and well-designed web-services are stateless and run in a a load-balanced, fault-tolerant manner. Arguably a much better proposition than a dusty old Dell server locked in a closer.
    - paulryanrogers 10y ago
      And when S3 was glitchy recently [those] depending solely upon it suffered. Arguably less than they may have otherwise. But with one's own hardware one has more control. EDIT: fixed swipe typo
- syshum 10y ago
  > everyone had to take their computers home every night - nothing to steal. Everything was Cloud That is scary if you believe that.. That nothing can be stolen because it is in "the cloud"... I am sure there are a few Celebs that will tell you in graphic detail how wrong you are. >Not having to pay for any on-site sysadmin definetly saved the company money Likely compromising Security, backups, and a few other things as you depend on "the cloud" to provide these things I am sure the customers at CodeSpaces ( http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-lesson-cloud-backup/314805651 http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-sp... ) thought their data was secure in the "cloud" as well I bet you claim that will nto happen to you because you only use "the largest providers" like AWS or Dropbox.... Far to often I see companies moving their entire operations to "the cloud" with no planning for Off-Boarding, Data Backups, or anything, they just assume "its the cloud so everything is perfect, cheap, secure and we need no neckbeard admins" That is a scary scary trend. SaaS can be a good tool, when used right. It can also be the end of the organization when done wrong...

DaiPlusPlus 10y ago

Increasingly companies are shedding on-prem infrastructure. One startup I was at har everyone work exclusively on laptops (though with docking stations and monitors) and had a policy where everyone had to take their computers home every night - nothing to steal. Everything was Cloud-hosted on AWS, Atlassian, GitHub and Dropbox. To my surprise it worked quite well - the only issue was working with large files because we had no NAS/file-server and only ~10mbps upstream. Not having to pay for any on-site sysadmin definetly saved the company money - even more-so when you consider there was no physical servers to break either.

paulryanrogers 10y ago
"...consider there was no physical servers to break either." Consider that the cloud they did rely upon was comprised of other people's computers.
- DaiPlusPlus 10y ago
  The point of "the cloud" isn't just global accessibility, but also massive redundancy - Azure Storage and S3 both replicate data globally in case of data-center meteor impacts and well-designed web-services are stateless and run in a a load-balanced, fault-tolerant manner. Arguably a much better proposition than a dusty old Dell server locked in a closer.
  - paulryanrogers 10y ago
    And when S3 was glitchy recently [those] depending solely upon it suffered. Arguably less than they may have otherwise. But with one's own hardware one has more control. EDIT: fixed swipe typo
syshum 10y ago
> everyone had to take their computers home every night - nothing to steal. Everything was Cloud That is scary if you believe that.. That nothing can be stolen because it is in "the cloud"... I am sure there are a few Celebs that will tell you in graphic detail how wrong you are. >Not having to pay for any on-site sysadmin definetly saved the company money Likely compromising Security, backups, and a few other things as you depend on "the cloud" to provide these things I am sure the customers at CodeSpaces ( http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-spaces-lesson-cloud-backup/314805651 http://www.networkcomputing.com/cloud-infrastructure/code-sp... ) thought their data was secure in the "cloud" as well I bet you claim that will nto happen to you because you only use "the largest providers" like AWS or Dropbox.... Far to often I see companies moving their entire operations to "the cloud" with no planning for Off-Boarding, Data Backups, or anything, they just assume "its the cloud so everything is perfect, cheap, secure and we need no neckbeard admins" That is a scary scary trend. SaaS can be a good tool, when used right. It can also be the end of the organization when done wrong...