3 ms·
Larger ships carry more people and can thus sink with more, let's cut the ships in half? Point being, there's a lot of infrastructure that kinda doesn't make s
by Avamander 3y ago
Larger ships carry more people and can thus sink with more, let's cut the ships in half?
Point being, there's a lot of infrastructure that kinda doesn't make sense split up. If you want resiliency, build a second system in parallel not make management of an existing one times more expensive.
- ocdtrekkie 3y agoThere's really no reason for all sensitive data and email to be stored on the servers of one company which has tens of thousands of employees who might be insider threats not to just one customer, but all of them.
- wepple 3y agoDouble-edged sword, because few organizations also have the resources to do security at the scale and depth as a MS/goog/Amz
- salawat 3y agoYes? There is a little bit of wisdom out there: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Heterogenous architecture (where you intentionallly mix and match differing parts for increased fault tolerance) has been a thing for decades.
- Avamander 3y agoYou do realise you'll have half a ship, not two ships then? Defence in depth is expensive, infrastructure at scale is expensive, it would be difficult and more expensive to have a bunch of small operators reach the same level considering the initial cost and overhead. I'm sure though that such equally viable alternatives could be built, but not by splitting existing ones.