5 ms·

I don't understand the outrage. There's a clear distinction between "Private Network" and "Private To Just My Servers Network." I've been a DO user for years an

I don't understand the outrage. There's a clear distinction between "Private Network" and "Private To Just My Servers Network." I've been a DO user for years and I've never been confused about this. Anyone I've ever recommended DO to has never been confused about it either. I just automated the firewall and SSH tunnels/TLS certificates setup to restrict access and encrypt communication between my droplets when necessary.

nirvdrum 12y ago
I see a lot of people get tripped up by this via my work on rubber [1]. It's probably selection bias, but most of them are switching to DO as a cheaper alternative to EC2 and in EC2 your private network is "private to just my servers network" unless you go well out of your way to change that. It also seems like a pretty sensible default for a company that has a lot to lose if malware is able to propagate through a datacenter by anyone willing to invest $5 for the month. [1] -- https://rubber.io/ https://rubber.io/
worklogin 12y ago
I agree with you - it's like having one NIC to the internet, one to a big LAN switch with every other device. No surprise for me... especially when the touted benefit has never been privacy, but cheaper network costs. I suppose they could change the name to "Local networking" or "DigiNet™" or something.
azinman2 12y ago
Seems like a very small sample size to be convinced it's clear. When you call something private, that carries a lot of connotations. To me that distinction that you think is so clear is anything but. While I use Linode they also talk about a private network that I assume their switches are configured in such a way that the data doesn't leak outside of my VMs. That I could ping and connect other linodes needs to be made explicit. Why not call it the "Linode-wide Network" or "Shared DO-only Network"? Ambiguity is not a good thing when the consequences are high.

nirvdrum 12y ago

I see a lot of people get tripped up by this via my work on rubber [1]. It's probably selection bias, but most of them are switching to DO as a cheaper alternative to EC2 and in EC2 your private network is "private to just my servers network" unless you go well out of your way to change that. It also seems like a pretty sensible default for a company that has a lot to lose if malware is able to propagate through a datacenter by anyone willing to invest $5 for the month. [1] -- https://rubber.io/ https://rubber.io/

worklogin 12y ago

I agree with you - it's like having one NIC to the internet, one to a big LAN switch with every other device. No surprise for me... especially when the touted benefit has never been privacy, but cheaper network costs. I suppose they could change the name to "Local networking" or "DigiNet™" or something.

azinman2 12y ago

Seems like a very small sample size to be convinced it's clear. When you call something private, that carries a lot of connotations. To me that distinction that you think is so clear is anything but. While I use Linode they also talk about a private network that I assume their switches are configured in such a way that the data doesn't leak outside of my VMs. That I could ping and connect other linodes needs to be made explicit. Why not call it the "Linode-wide Network" or "Shared DO-only Network"? Ambiguity is not a good thing when the consequences are high.