On Sat, 19 May 2018 at 16:42:49 +0200
Arnt Karlsen <arnt@???> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:25:53 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message
> <20180519042553.7ba51256@???>:
>
>>> {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
::
Re: [DNG] Is Void OK? Was: Keep it …
