4 ms·
I don't understand why you're so upset about this. If you don't think the product is a good value for your time and money, that's fine: don't purchase it. I th
by morley 8y ago
I don't understand why you're so upset about this. If you don't think the product is a good value for your time and money, that's fine: don't purchase it.
I think Helm comes with some obvious trade-offs, but the product looks nice and I think (judging from other HN comments) there's a market for it. I don't know if it's a large market for this to be a success, but it seems interesting at least, and at first blush the product looks well-made.
I don't think this product is exactly for me as my main email, but it could be interesting as a side email service, or one for really sensitive emails. Depending on the price point, I'd consider purchasing. If the price point is too high or the maintenance costs are too large, then I won't. What's the big deal? That trade-off not working for you or me doesn't mean the product shouldn't exist.
- cwyers 8y agoBecause it bothers me when someone sells a "secure" product where the security measures are unrelated to the threat model. The Helm server is connected to the open Internet, which means that physical possession of the Helm server is not the only or even main thing necessary to secure it from compromise. Because of how it works, the server still has a dependency on cloud providers -- you need cloud backups and the public endpoint for the ssh tunnel to get around ISP packet sniffing. Since I still need to trust other people's servers for this to work, why the focus on owning your own server?
- bostonvaulter2 8y agoHow would you realistically completely remove the need for the relay server while still allowing the customer to run the server on a typical home internet connection?
- wmf 8y agoFlip it around: don't run the server on a typical home internet connection but instead run it in a data center.