[hospitalJail]

I'm the lone person at my team that still believes in keeping most of our stuff local, with online versions as primarily backup.

Every time some global service goes down, or internal internet/intranet goes down, there is a security breach, or a WFH person has a power outage I'm reminded I'm right.

I'm no luddite, these services make you dependent on them. The worst thing I'm dependent on here is a bad computer. We have backups and keep our files on our network, so it seems fine. We are slowly moving to an online system, and I'm constantly reminded all the problems shifting online.

Meanwhile, if I had a linux server, we would be in control of our own destiny.

[goodoldneon]

I don't know about you, but the stuff I self-manage usually has worse uptime than SaaS products

[dijit]

Doesn't matter if your uptime is 80% as long as that 20% of downtime is happening when nobody is working

Additionally an 80% uptime architecture is really simple to maintain and restore and so on.

Complexity increases exponentially the more 9's you add.

[hospitalJail]

Depends.

Having our programs offline mean I can run them, even if the internet isnt working.

Instead of getting 0 data from downtime, I can still get the data, run the programs, and give it to the person who needs it.

If we are fully online, if the servers are down, we basically lose the entire time.

Not to mention, I think 'uptime' is a pretty optimistic number, unusable slow service doesnt seem to hit any metrics I'm aware of.

[sofixa]

Really depends on the "stuff". GitLab pretty much manages itself through their Helm and Omnibus installs.

[solotronics]

GIT is actually a great protocol for keeping distributed copies of code. You can pretty easily with bash cycle through a list of backup urls for a git repo, looking for updates.

[_flux]

Git itself is nice, but then there's the issue tracker and CI that are more difficult to setup.