On Sat, 19 May 2018 at 16:42:49 +0200 Arnt Karlsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:25:53 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message > <[email protected]>: > >>> {headdesk} >>> >>> I really don't think it's that difficult to understand that avoiding >>> outsourcing in no way precludes appropriate fallbacks and measures >>> to eliminate SPoFs. I'm frankly quite puzzled that my mentioning >>> (as an example) GitLab elicited the comment 'This wouldn't have >>> helped [because] you need redundancy' -- when I nowhere suggested >>> eschewing redundancy and when that open source project has a >>> mountain of documentation on that very subject. And I'm puzzled a >>> second time to see you ignore my having just pointed that out, as >>> if I hadn't. >> >> You need redundancy in repository's admins, not on infrastructure. > > ..you need both, IME. 17 years ago, I was the final lawful webmaster > at fmb.no, our domain docs were stolen by https://www.frp.no/ people. Humm, how can infrastructure redundancy protect against document stealth? Infrastructure redundancy protects you against hardware failure, not legal or bureaucratic events. Alessandro _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
