4 ms·
It's a bad system and you should feel bad for using it. By all means charge enterprises more, but base it on something else, headcount, revenue, non-profit sta
by anotherhue 2y ago
It's a bad system and you should feel bad for using it.
By all means charge enterprises more, but base it on something else, headcount, revenue, non-profit status...whatever.
Every time I hear about a data breach I wonder if someone avoided perfectly reasonable SSO protections because of this tax.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- colechristensen 2y agoIf you have enterprise pricing, have substantial enterprise features. That’s it.
- throw10920 2y ago> It's a bad system and you should feel bad for using it. What "system" is bad and why? The poster made several arguments - which one of them are you rebutting? The core idea that "you should have to pay more money for more features" makes sense from a basic economics standpoint (regardless of other rationalizations). > I wonder if someone avoided perfectly reasonable SSO protections because of this tax I don't know how much sense this speculation makes. SSO is complex to set up - without data, you could just as easily argue that misconfigured SSO makes breaches more likely, instead of less. Plus, from a more practical standpoint, if you're frustrated about the never-ending stream of breaches (as I am), then it'd be better to push for laws that make the end result (personal data leaked) directly illegal with steep fines. There's too many different "upstream" problems (lack of SSO, default database credentials, buffer overflow in web application, misconfigured authorization system in webapp, etc.) for the strategy of "wage war against them one at a time" to be productive.