On Sat, 19 May 2018 20:49:45 +0200 Arnt Karlsen <[email protected]> ha wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 16:57:07 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message > <[email protected]>: > > > 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? > > ..theft, not stealth. Google those 2. ;o) > > > Infrastructure redundancy protects you against hardware > > failure, not legal or bureaucratic events. > > ..that's your narrow view. Real infrastructure redundancy means > setting up at least 2 fully independent web sites with at least > 2 competing independent web hotels mirroring each other, Web hosts, not hotels. Google those 2. ;o) > and feed > them content over rsync, scp etc from a master server on e.g. a > cell phone. As I already said, this does nothing against theft of documents or the allegedly illegal transfer of an Internet domain name or hijack of a DNS record. > ..in our case, problem was time and funding to litigate the control > of such legal or bureaucratic events. 4 hours before the "primary" > ballot filing deadline, we were told we needed "5000 signatures" to > file, truth is 500, we mobilized and got over 12,000 approved, despite > having inch thick piles of signature sheets stolen from the 2 major > Statoil gas stations south of Stavanger on Feb 28'th 2001. Infrastructure redundancy does not protect you against such events, too. All of these events in fact involved non ICT infrastructures. > ..from then on, it was all sabotage, I took over as webmaster in late > July/early August, and without said infrastructure control, we wound > up with 688 votes. Alessandro _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
