4 ms·

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 o

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.

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.