3 ms·

I don't know why you're getting downvoted because you're absolutely right. Perhaps most of the people in this thread haven't managed servers for more than a dec

I don't know why you're getting downvoted because you're absolutely right. Perhaps most of the people in this thread haven't managed servers for more than a decade - because it used to be (and still is in some organisations) the norm to self-host half the stuff that was listed. * Malware detection? Isn't that pretty must how most malware detection works? Sure they use the cloud to pull periodic updates but the software itself is self hosted * Customer support software? I've lost count of the number of solutions available to self host. Both free and commercial. * Website uptime monitoring? While there is a strong argument for hosting that in the cloud, there are umpteen solutions for website monitoring. * Accounting software? I didn't even realise running accounting software as a service was now a thing! * Email delivery? Fair enough, self hosting email can be a massive headache. Less so if you run Microsoft Exchange (one of the few things Windows actually makes easier than it's Linux / UNIX counterparts). You can even go for a hybrid approach and self host the mail server but have a mail proxy between your server and the outside world - so you benefit from spam detection as a service while still hosting your own mail. I'm not going to argue that one is better than the other when it comes to SaaS vs self hosting. But people in here seem to have very short memories when arguing that self-hosting isn't at all viable. In fact I have personally supported all of the above in self hosted versions in the last couple of years.

tomhoward 8y ago
I don't think anyone is disputing that it's possible, but rather how cost-effective and time-efficient it is [1]. I also have the experience of managing many of these services, and I therefore know just how much more productive you can be when you don't need to do it yourself. Of course there are trade-offs; business is nothing if not a game of tradeoffs. We're just talking about what is optimal. [1] Not to mention how much more stable and secure; Self-hosting can involve huge security and reliability risks.
- laumars 8y ago
  > We're just talking about what is optimal. I don't believe what is optimal can be generalised like that. "Optimal" is going to be specific to the business in question. Which is why I'm a firm believer of leaving all the options on the table. > Self-hosting can involve huge security and reliability risks. In fairness so can the cloud. I personally don't see difference as 'risk' but more 'responsibility'. Some of the places I've worked have been PCI DSS and Gambling Commission audited so we had that responsibility already. Self hosting a few other resources didn't really add much extra in terms of our security responsibilities. But the case would be very different of lots of other different types of businesses.
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    I think we're agreed that one shouldn't be absolutist about these things and that different approaches will be optimal depending on the circumstances. It's worth reminding ourselves that the root comment was an absolutist assertion about the folly of outsourcing. So the discussion is easily resolved: don't be absolutist :)
    - mmt 8y ago
      > It's worth reminding ourselves that the root comment was an absolutist assertion about the folly of outsourcing. Even that strikes me as a mischaracterization, or, at best, taking just one statement out of context. It was an assertion about the folly of relinquishing control, not being prepared for that lack of control, and thereby subsequently suffering a prod outage.
tripzilch 8y ago
To be fair a couple of those don't qualify as "if it goes down it would cause a prod outage".

tomhoward 8y ago

I don't think anyone is disputing that it's possible, but rather how cost-effective and time-efficient it is [1]. I also have the experience of managing many of these services, and I therefore know just how much more productive you can be when you don't need to do it yourself. Of course there are trade-offs; business is nothing if not a game of tradeoffs. We're just talking about what is optimal. [1] Not to mention how much more stable and secure; Self-hosting can involve huge security and reliability risks.

laumars 8y ago
> We're just talking about what is optimal. I don't believe what is optimal can be generalised like that. "Optimal" is going to be specific to the business in question. Which is why I'm a firm believer of leaving all the options on the table. > Self-hosting can involve huge security and reliability risks. In fairness so can the cloud. I personally don't see difference as 'risk' but more 'responsibility'. Some of the places I've worked have been PCI DSS and Gambling Commission audited so we had that responsibility already. Self hosting a few other resources didn't really add much extra in terms of our security responsibilities. But the case would be very different of lots of other different types of businesses.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  I think we're agreed that one shouldn't be absolutist about these things and that different approaches will be optimal depending on the circumstances. It's worth reminding ourselves that the root comment was an absolutist assertion about the folly of outsourcing. So the discussion is easily resolved: don't be absolutist :)
  - mmt 8y ago
    > It's worth reminding ourselves that the root comment was an absolutist assertion about the folly of outsourcing. Even that strikes me as a mischaracterization, or, at best, taking just one statement out of context. It was an assertion about the folly of relinquishing control, not being prepared for that lack of control, and thereby subsequently suffering a prod outage.

tripzilch 8y ago

To be fair a couple of those don't qualify as "if it goes down it would cause a prod outage".