39 ms·
RE climate argument, your marginal impact on the environment is likely going to be worse with storing stuff locally vs. in the cloud. Even including the extra s
by TeMPOraL 2y ago
RE climate argument, your marginal impact on the environment is likely going to be worse with storing stuff locally vs. in the cloud. Even including the extra security/maintenance work that you don't need locally, the data center is still going to have more efficient hardware that's managed better, and gets all kinds of economies of scale, including efficiency (cooling) and utilization (via virtualization, if you're just using a service or VM and not colocating).
I say that as someone who prefers local-first and avoid cloud dependencies like a plague.
- FollowingTheDao 2y agoMy photos are on my internal SSD drive. I don’t know how who having them on a cloud server is better ecologically. I don’t access my old photos really, sort of like a photo album under the coffee table. Taking less or no photos is kind of my thing now anyway.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoSo you're decreasing your ecological impact by simply not doing what other people do. In other words it's not that you're local vs cloud. You're using local-S3-glacier and other people are using cloud-S3 + cloud-EC2.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago> So you're decreasing your ecological impact by simply not doing what other people do. Yes. How else am I supposed to do it?
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y agoI think that's a great way to do it! It's just not a cloud vs local argument, more of a more vs less argument