[HN Gopher] Parler's epic fail: A crash course on running your o...
___________________________________________________________________
Parler's epic fail: A crash course on running your own servers
Author : fireeyed
Score : 63 points
Date : 2021-02-14 18:20 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.alexgleason.me)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.alexgleason.me)
| dd36 wrote:
| This made me realize that one reason many of us use cloud hosting
| is that our home internet is lacking, whether through caps or the
| lack of fiber deployment. It was easy for Congress to railroad
| the rights of private property owners and cities for 5G but they
| can't seem to do it for fiber... Maybe this can get Conservatives
| to realize that unfettered broadband access lessens the power of
| the hosts.
| rShergold wrote:
| The physical network itself evolved away from peer -> peer back
| to client -> server. With IPv6 I'd hoped we would today be
| living in a world where I could send my friend the url
| fe80::1ff:fe23:4567:890a/cat.mov and they could download a
| video directly from my phone. No matter where my phone happens
| to be in the world. People could host "micro services" on their
| personal devices and the whole world could access them. If
| someone wants to know if I'm free on a date they could connect
| to my phone's calendar app directly and ask. There are so may
| possibilities of truly peer to peer applications.
|
| But the network itself prevents this. Bittorrent has to jump
| though multiple NAT busting hoops to allow two internet users
| to talk to each other directly. limited IPv4 addresses mean
| home internet connections have dynamic IP addresses which means
| no one can realistically host at home. Because no one hosts at
| home they consume far more than they upload. Because of this
| the physical network was built with a much higher download
| bandwidth than upload. It's a vicious cycle that wasn't
| intentional it just sort of evolved that way.
| yannoninator wrote:
| this is all good except when people in a different country try
| access your service, they start to complain about your service
| being slow due to massive latency and lagging.
|
| and then you wished you would have went to the cloud after all.
|
| now you've got another problem.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Does there exist a de-platform proof way of hosting something on
| the internet?
|
| Even if you host your own server on your own premises they could
| forbid you from using the location, shut off your electricity,
| etc.
|
| Is it possible to host a website entirely on bittorrent? I
| suppose there's also IPFS but I'm not entirely familiar.
|
| Maybe once solar is cheap enough you could launch some sort of
| array of powered drones into the sky that follow the sun that
| send files to people via P2P - solar mesh network if you will.
| madamelic wrote:
| Yes, there are.
|
| IPFS, I believe, has a solution. The one I am most familiar
| with is Dat Browser.
| swebs wrote:
| 4chan has survived the wannabe-stasi deplatform mob all these
| years simply by hosting the servers in the admin's basement.
| rvz wrote:
| Like 4chan, Gab also survived the de-platforming witch hunt
| and are self-hosting almost everything.
| spijdar wrote:
| "They" in that case would typically be the government (assuming
| you own your property), which at least in the US would have to
| (at least nominally) follow more regulations and protocols for
| restricting your speech, while a private business doesn't
| really have those same obligations.
|
| I'm not sure how ISPs fit into this though, and to what extent
| they can say "we don't like the content you're serving" and cut
| your net. Obviously if the content is outright illegal that's
| one thing, but I wonder if they can "pull an Amazon".
| sjg007 wrote:
| Even if you had a data center other peers could refuse to
| peer with you, remove you from DNS etc...
| spijdar wrote:
| Yeah, it kinda ties back to the question of under what
| circumstance can an ISP cut you off.
|
| You could at least get around DNS level stuff with a P2P
| application layer. But if you're cut off at the routing
| level by everyone then yeah, no go...
| kevan wrote:
| Make a dark web[1] site? Basically make it impossible to link
| what you're doing to who your infra providers/internet
| connections are.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_web
| tpmx wrote:
| It's kinda funny that apart from the headline this post is a
| typical circa 2005 tutorial on how to run your own large volume
| website cheaply.
| gerikson wrote:
| That's when I stopped learning how to admin systems so I am
| very down with this...
| tpmx wrote:
| Well, it works.
|
| So much money is wasted with AWS. (Look at at their margins.)
|
| It's useful in development/testing. It's irresponsible to use
| managed services that don't have an easy migration path to
| something open.
| rvz wrote:
| It works for comma.ai as they are self-hosting their deep-
| learning system in house and not in the cloud with these
| huge costs.
|
| Deep-Learning in the cloud really is a scam and a complete
| waste of money.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| > freedom minded
|
| > tech oligarchs
|
| ...here we go.
|
| I really struggle to understand how some folks didn't realize
| they were using other people's things until recently. Maybe the
| fact that they weren't physically in a space was hiding the
| proverbial threshold crossing activity that takes place a dozen
| or so times as you travel to twitter.com.
|
| It _is_ free speech to kick someone off your platform. Freedom
| minded individuals seem to think freedom only goes in one
| direction. I will defend DJTs right to tweet stupid shit all day
| and every day, just as I'll defend Twitter's right to kick him
| off the platform.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Is it freedom of speech to cut off your power supply and
| running water if I don't like your face? What about mobile
| connectivity and internet? Can we refuse to sell you groceries?
|
| Can you live without 'using other people's stuff' except like a
| hermit in a cave?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| None of those are freedom of speech, because none involve
| speech acts, or refusal to engage in speech acts.
|
| They are freedom of _association_ , but in some cases--in US
| law for the first consideration--they are within the scope of
| such freedom that government can (under the strict scrutiny
| test) and has chosen to (e.g., either as part of regulation
| of monopolies or as part of public accommodation law) limit.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Power supply and water are utilities. Mobile connectivity and
| internet are not. Groceries are not.
|
| Someone else's speech isn't a protected class, except for
| speech due to religion. Discrimination based on things that
| aren't a property of being in a protected class is legal for
| any non-utility.
|
| Personally I'd say that internet service providers should be
| utilities and regulated as such, but currently they aren't so
| the ISPs are allowed to decide what speech to carry.
| TechnoTimeStop wrote:
| Authenticity plays a huge role here. Why do we let shit by
| the metric ton over the firewall attack free liberties and
| social discourse online? China literally has payed 3
| million + people for years to do this, that's two agents
| for every social group in the free world.
|
| Most of the bullshit our western democracies have
| experienced in the last years online should be archived and
| studied for the crimes our Russian Chinese friends have
| committed against our free democracy.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I don't like how it's fashionable to point finger at
| China/Russia for every possible issue.
|
| We literally have registered political parties in the
| west that do the exact same thing and the matter was
| proven in a court of law (Leave EU). They have faced no
| material consequences.
| [deleted]
| 542458 wrote:
| If it's a government service (like power and water in many
| cases), that's why freedom of speech as a right exists - to
| protect you from government retaliation for speech. For
| mobile connectivity and internet, similar rules apply if the
| service is a common carrier which recognizes the fact that
| while private, these organizations operate as government-
| allowed monopolies.
|
| For groceries, that's a private business. If you run into a
| grocery store and cause a scene or do something the owner
| doesn't like the owner can remove you. There are fairly
| narrow exceptions to this, such as how you can't usually be
| discriminated against for being a member of a protected
| class.
|
| Freedom of Speech in the US was never designed to protect you
| from other people, it was designed to protect you from the
| government.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I think we both have an understanding that a person should
| not be left without essential services or be punished
| without some kind of due process.
|
| If so, the government centric line of argument does not get
| you anywhere, because there are many essential services are
| not government owned or controlled monopolies..
|
| My electric, water, internet and mobile suppliers are
| private Same goes for the bank. There are only a handful of
| companies in each category in the country, and they could
| wake up tomorrow and remove me from their network.
|
| You can either have personal liberty, or oligopolies with
| contracts 'we can remove you at any time for any reason'.
| Not both.
| sneak wrote:
| No, the 1A was designed to protect you from the government.
| "Freedom of speech" is a separate matter entirely.
| 542458 wrote:
| That's fair, I should have written that.
| oneplane wrote:
| Depends on where you live and what the law says. I believe
| some Americans would answer 'yes' to all of those. A
| transaction between private individuals (or non-governmental
| organisations) is a privilege, not a right.
|
| In other parts of the world there would be limits and
| requirements set by the parties elected by the people, i.e.
| rules on what things you can and can't discriminate on (like
| ability to pay you can measure, but skin color is not allowed
| to be a factor for selling electricity). Generally there is a
| list of factors that you cannot use to allow/deny sale.
| threatofrain wrote:
| In the US, people can refuse to sell you groceries, and for
| many people that's pretty impactful. Presumably Amazon also
| bans people for abuse, but life without Amazon sounds like a
| huge loss of access.
|
| Under the US Constitution, Christians can also refuse to bake
| gay cakes, fire gay employees, or evict gay members from
| positions of leadership.
|
| At the heart of cancellation is the freedom of association;
| perhaps we should redraw the boundaries on where that freedom
| begins and ends, but while keeping in mind the balance of
| affairs.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| You can't live in a society without using other people's
| stuff (practically, I'm sure we could come up with examples
| of ownership concepts being challenged).
|
| But living in a society means not upsetting people so badly
| that they won't sell you groceries. There's tons of ways to
| do that while retaining your ability to speak what's on your
| mind, you just have to be thoughtful about how your words
| effect others, even if just to make sure you don't get kicked
| out of society.
| AnHonestComment wrote:
| A former director of the CIA who spied on the US senate
| while they were investigating the CIA got on the news and
| said mainstream ideologies like libertarianism should be
| treated like an insurgency by the government. His
| radicalizing speech wasn't silenced -- it was beamed across
| the country by the establishment.
|
| Your post is just gas lighting.
|
| People are realizing that other people mean them serious
| harm over political differences, and using means like
| censorship to achieve it.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| That argument works if by "upsetting people" we mean actual
| real people with normal psychology.
|
| But it falls apart when 'people' are multinationals and
| "upsetting them" means their PR department gets a funny
| idea. In that case we need a contract that provides more
| protection than 'we can remove you at any time for any
| reason'
| TameAntelope wrote:
| The whole, "they're faceless greed machines" works both
| ways, though, doesn't it? You've got to do something
| pretty universally terrible to have a blood sucking
| corporation actually turn down your money...
| acover wrote:
| Not really. When a corp has billions in revenue, your
| $2000 is nothing compared to any possibility of
| jeopardizing a fraction of their revenue.
|
| Imagine a corp optimizing click through. Any negative
| news could dampen that and require immediate action.
|
| You have to be perfect or too big to remove.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| And yet I'm neither of those things and I've never been
| kicked off of a platform, so clearly there's something
| off with what you've said, otherwise people would be
| getting deplatformed for saying or doing anything at all
| that might go against popular sentiment.
|
| Parler wasn't removed from AWS because it was a
| conservative site, it was removed because it wasn't
| willing to handle the legally troubling volume of
| potentially criminal activity. You can post your thoughts
| on any conservative idea you want on Twitter, no one is
| getting banned for that. The only reason anyone has been
| removed from any popular social media (or AWS) is because
| they became unwilling to recognize the fact they owe more
| than nothing to their fellow man, which includes not
| trying to silence others through intimidation.
|
| Ideas have not been and are not still the problem, is the
| refusal to think carefully about how to express oneself.
| greesil wrote:
| Nice strawman argument.
| swebs wrote:
| "There is no cloud. It's just someone else's computer"
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Would advise using brain rather than simple pattern matching
| and memorised response. Author didn't mention a violation of
| freedom of speech.
| oneplane wrote:
| It also seems to miss the point that you will always use
| something owned by someone else as long as you exist in a
| connected world. It's also why the problem exists: being
| together also means having to deal with conflicting directions
| and since you don't "own" everything your direction might not
| "win".
|
| The same goes for getting deplatformed: if you are being nasty
| the problem isn't the non-governmental org removing you, that's
| a symptom of nobody wanting to deal with you. (or nobody 'big
| and easy')
|
| Just because it looked good, or looked like a lot of people
| were 'with' you, doesn't mean it's true and doesn't mean it
| keeps looking that way if the barrier to entry gets higher.
| Hanging around in a browser and 'liking' or otherwise
| interacting/spreading things isn't actually a replacement for
| "a group of likeminded people sharing ideals", it's much more
| comparable to schoolkids forming groups.
|
| At some point we might see a digital platform that is expensive
| enough and has a higher entry complexity to actually only grow
| and maintain people that are 'true' to the ideals fostered by
| that platform. Only then do we have an example that would be
| 'real' enough to converse about.
| njharman wrote:
| Rtfa. It says and agrees with the exact straw man you are
| invoking.
|
| Namely run on your own stuff and not on someone else's
| platform.
| reddog wrote:
| Fair point. But I get my electricity, telephone service, water,
| gas, groceries for entities owned by someone else and I don't
| have to worry about having any of these services pulled because
| of what I posted on twitter yesterday. Imagine the phone
| company telling you that you will no longer recieve service
| because of something you said on a call.
|
| Some people's livelyhood depend on their google or facebook
| accounts every bit as much as they depend on telephone service.
| wwww4all wrote:
| Does Twitter have right to kick someone out for being gay or
| being Asian or for belonging to some LGBT group?
|
| According to your logic, Twitter can do that.
| njharman wrote:
| They can. But won't.
|
| Why allowing (socially as in bad PR) any censorship is bad.
|
| Otherwise you get where we are at. What the mainstream deems
| bad is silenced. What transient outrage seems bad is
| silenced. What authorities convince the masses is scary gets
| silenced. Any voice that platform doesn't like and isnt
| popular enogh gets silenced.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| This article is kind of depressing, when did hosting your own
| server become a lost art?
|
| One of parler's problems was they didn't scrub headers which made
| it very obvious they were using AWS and which AWS services they
| were using.
|
| AWS is just a bunch of APIs - they could have colo'd their front
| end or put a bunch of varnish servers in front if it at a colo
| and nobody would have been the wiser they were using AWS on the
| backend (assuming their AWS account didn't have Parler Inc in the
| payment details). From there getting taken down from one colo
| would just be an issue of spinning up a front end at another
| colo. Front that setup with a couple CDNs and now you have layers
| where you have to coordinate between half a dozen companies to
| bring the site down completely, meanwhile your data is safe in
| AWS because nobody knows your using AWS or even if they do it's
| hard to pick you out from the millions of other AWS users.
| wging wrote:
| AWS publishes which IPs it owns, so scrubbing headers is not
| enough for secrecy. (Not that doing something that relies on
| secrecy is a smart plan for a business, anyway.)
| https://isitonaws.com/
| nacs wrote:
| Yep, the amount of incompetence in Parler's case is just mind-
| boggling.
|
| Their failure to make it cloud agnostic being 1 (even though
| they claimed before they went down that their app could run
| without AWS without issue).
|
| Their failure to be incapable (still) to get it running again
| on non-cloud hardware..
|
| And of course their inability to, as you suggest, move the
| frontend routing to a CDN/Cloudflare/DDosguard type service and
| have all the heavy lifting continue to be done via
| AWS/Azure/Google till you can run 100% on your own hardware.
| 13415 wrote:
| I doubt running your own server is always the right
| solution.There are pros and cons for and against hosting
| yourself. A small company without dedicated security team may get
| hacked and all customer data exposed, for example.
|
| Contrary to what this article insinuates, the vast majority of
| companies do not have to worry about violating the terms of
| services of cloud providers and other external services, because
| they don't offer services designed to violate besaid terms of
| services.
|
| As for Parler, of course they should have seen that coming. It's
| pathetic that they didn't. They should have looked at sites like
| the Piratebay for how to do it and prepared a bit more.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| "the vast majority of companies do not have to worry about
| violating the terms of services of cloud providers"
|
| https://blog.checklyhq.com/why-the-recent-digital-ocean-kill...
| 13415 wrote:
| A personal anecdote why some blog poster is scared and
| worried about ToS of cloud providers? Sure, go ahead and host
| your website in your mom's basement. That's exactly my point,
| a company who has reason to believe they will violate the ToS
| of business partners should not make business with those
| business partners. It's kind of trivial.
|
| That's why Parler was such an epic fail, not because they
| didn't host everything themselves. They were acting as if
| they'd care about free speech - unless it wasn't totally
| compatible with their personal views, in case of which they'd
| ban instantly - and did not prepare in the slightest for
| contingencies and were caught in the cold. All of that in the
| light of plenty of precedents, ranging from Napster over
| Piratebay to ISIS propaganda websites. It baffles my mind how
| a company could be so unprepared.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| The photos though.. If you are reading this remove the server or
| the rug/carpet!!!! All the fluff from the carpet and the dust
| from the floor invading your box and will be chocking the fans!!!
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| I'm not sure running their own hardware and relying on an ISP or
| colocationg at a datacentre would help Parler compared with
| renting services/VMs from someone like Amazon.
|
| Just about all ISP have terms and conditions that prohibit use
| that they find offensive.
|
| Data Foundry, mentioned in the article, acceptable use policy is
| below and I'm sure could be used to kick out Parler
|
| https://www.datafoundry.com/legal/aup
| rbanffy wrote:
| It's possible to hide one's presence from the datacenter by a
| shell company and a CDN.
| duhast2020 wrote:
| How? It would take one minute for a dude with some sniffer on
| his wifi to find the DNS entries and CDN used. Go to the
| press with "Parler is being hosted out of domain Foo w/
| CDNfront" and viola.
| ping_pong wrote:
| The "reason" given why Parler failed is awfully glib and one
| dimensional. You can't just serve content to millions of people
| per day and think you can just up and move to another provider.
|
| Had Parler just moderated their posts like they were asked to do,
| they would still be around. You can still have right wing, even
| extreme right wing views without calling for violence or
| organizing insurrections. The fact they essentially refused to
| moderate and let calls for violence fester on their platform is
| why they were shut off.
| rbanffy wrote:
| That and their hardware footprint seemed ridiculously
| overprovisioned. You can serve content to millions of people
| per day with fewer boxes than they were using.
|
| I always try to design a "degraded mode" read-only into my apps
| that covers maintenance windows and unscheduled outages. That
| is usually easier to lift and shift than the full app and can
| even be hosted someplace else if you don't mind it lagging
| behind the live website.
| amluto wrote:
| > Most datacenters only lease by the rack. These racks can hold
| up to 42 servers and are far too expensive.
|
| Hurricane Electric will happily lease you an entire rack for
| $400/mo with a 1Gbps connection. I would argue that, in
| comparison to the prices the OP mentions, Hurricane Electric's
| price is quite good. Also, there is one fewer middleman between
| you and the Internet (and power, and rack space, etc, and the
| front door, etc).
|
| (I believe that $400 number does not include vast amounts of
| power, so the actual price tag for filling that rack with
| conventional hardware may be rather higher. On the other hand,
| depending on your use case, fitting in a small power budget may
| be straightforward.)
| julienfr112 wrote:
| Nice post and inspiring, but one small point bother me: "I feel
| GREAT not living in FEAR". Well, you just traded the fear of
| being shut down by big corpo for the fear of having your hard
| disk or memory or fan or whatever fail.
| nacs wrote:
| Most rackmount servers double up on everything like power-
| supplies. Harddrives should be on RAID so a single drive
| failure shouldn't be a problem and you would have some time to
| goto the colo and switch out the hard drive.
|
| CPU and RAM last a very long time so it shouldn't be a problem
| (I've had literally 1 RAM stick failure in over a decade of
| hosting and the datacenter swapped out the bad memory stick in
| less than 30 minutes -- it also didn't bring down the server
| either, the kernel log started showing a bunch of ECC issues
| and a quick memory check pointed to the stick that had the
| problem).
|
| And of course you can just get double or triple the amount of
| servers with IP failover and such to be even more resilient to
| hardware failures.
|
| This article is just showing how to get started. Throw more
| servers at it for more redundancy and scaling as needed.
| 542458 wrote:
| I can't help but find the introductory quote a bit much, given
| that Parler's moderation scheme (judgement by other Parler users)
| typically resulted in the removal of all opinions other than
| those held by the majority of Parler users.
|
| In any case, Parler's problem (well, one problem of many) was
| that they had MASSIVE hardware requirements that dramatically cut
| down on the number of places that could practically host them.
|
| It also seems that despite assurances and good sense, Parler had
| deeply tied itself to Amazon's APIs, making migration off AWS
| slow even once a host was found.
| treeman79 wrote:
| My initial thought was it can't be that hard to migrate off
| quickly. Then I thought about all the major sites I've worked
| on or built over the past decade.
|
| Oh crap. There is zero chance I could do it quickly.
|
| So a turn around from 20 years ago when I would setup LAMP
| applications on new new hardware in an afternoon.
| john2010 wrote:
| Very likely many isps whitelist speedtest.net to show amazing
| speeds.
| 542458 wrote:
| That's why you also check Fast.com - it's on Netflix's servers,
| so you can't whitelist Fast without also whitelisting Netflix.
| rhencke wrote:
| It really was such a brilliant move on Netflix's part.
| TheRealSteel wrote:
| Surely it'd be trivial to increase the user's speed to
| Netflix servers if they've visited Fast.com in the last three
| minutes or similar?
| 542458 wrote:
| Thanks to TLS, Netflix and Fast are indistinguishable. All
| your ISP knows is the IP address you're talking to. They'd
| only know that you visited Fast in particular if you were
| using your ISP's DNS, which you shouldn't be using anyways
| :)
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| It's indistinguishable from an protocol perspective, not
| a data analysis perspective. Or to put it more
| practically, if a large data stream from Netflix lasts
| more than 10 seconds, it's video.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Except SNI will leak the domain name of the host you are
| connecting to.
| Lammy wrote:
| Personally I trust my ISP DNS a hell of a lot more than
| Google/Cloudflare. Why would I want to give them even
| _more_ data about me?
| nyx_ wrote:
| I've had ISP DNS servers that redirect NXDOMAIN responses
| to spammy "search" pages full of sponsored crap and
| banner ads.
|
| There's always OpenNIC, DNS.watch, or Quad9 if you're
| after something that isn't operated by a creepy megacorp.
| [deleted]
| rhencke wrote:
| I grew up in an era where running your own servers was just
| generally accepted practice.
|
| It's been fascinating watching how dramatically that viewpoint
| has shifted over the years to the point where it is now a novel
| idea to do so.
| 542458 wrote:
| I switched my personal website to a Raspberry Pi 4 in my
| basement a while ago, with cloudflare caching and roll-your-own
| DDNS - I've been pleasantly surprised by how easy the whole
| thing was to do (although my requirements are far from exotic).
| Balgair wrote:
| Any good resources to share?
| ping_pong wrote:
| I worked at a startup that managed its own bare metal. It was
| very hard and time consuming. And when things went down it was
| on you. You needed a really good datacenter partner to make
| sure that they were on top of things and could drop things at a
| moment's notice. But you don't know how responsive they will be
| until you're actually experiencing an outage.
|
| The level of convenience that cloud providers give is just
| orders of magnitude more efficient and easier.
| muststopmyths wrote:
| I have worked for companies in the past with horrible
| datacenter partners (one of them did not know that one of the
| two switches they routed our traffic through was completely
| dead), so I definitely agree with you on that.
|
| On the flip side, I wonder how much better the support from a
| cloud provider is if it's an isolated problem and not
| something that's setting twitter aflame.
|
| If it takes a cloud provider in the order of hours to get me
| back online, I could probably get the same sort of service
| from one of the better colos/hosting providers, especially if
| they were local and I had the ability to make a call to get
| support.
|
| There are other conveniences to cloud providers of course,
| but I think I if I could find highly skilled ops people and
| pay them well, I would run my own servers every time. For the
| kind of games I've worked on, the money/CPU cost of cloud is
| ludicrous.
|
| The trick these days is even finding high-level ops people
| who aren't already working 3-400k jobs for AWS/Azure/GCP
| Jochim wrote:
| I wonder how much of this is just the industry
| maturing/specialising. We don't think it's weird that most
| people don't mill their own flour when they bake bread, so long
| as the quality of the flour is good enough we're happy for
| someone else to do it for us.
|
| In the same way most people/companies don't really need to care
| what hardware their application runs on, only that it meets
| some bar of quality/cost that's appropriate for them. If
| someone else is delivering this then you've removed a small
| department's worth of overhead/planning from your corporate
| structure.
| angelbar wrote:
| If you need to have your baked goods constaltly, you will be
| better prepared with many flour providers in case of that one
| provider does NOT LIKE YOUR RECIPE and stop selling the
| ingredients to you... Or get your own flour mill.
|
| So, not a ideal analogy...
| rhencke wrote:
| I think your underlying point is fair, but I'd like to see
| you post a more constructive explanation of where it would
| be useful for the analogy to capture a truth about cloud
| services that is not true for, say, flour - switching cloud
| providers is incredibly difficult due to vendor lock-in.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-14 23:02 UTC)