Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Sohcahtoa82 49 days ago
This carries the same energy as "People will break into your car no matter what, so just leave your doors unlocked."
3 comments

You say that, but I know someone whose house had their front door kicked in by burglars even though it wasn't even locked.
This actually happened to me. The seats had moved and glovebox was open one morning. Then a second break-in a few days later, and this one damaged the door panel near the lock. I left the doors unlocked for a couple of weeks after, to decrease the break-in damage -- there was never anything of value in the vehicle.
The energy here is "so don't leave anything valuable in your car".
Unfortunately that is not what they proposed. To stretch the automotive analogy too far, you could say: if you invite a carjacker in, their seatbelt is not going to stop them from carjacking you.
"Avoid shared-kernel attack surfaces" is not an unreasonable proposition in 2026.
Virtual machines are still the best design and has been for something like 20 years

Containers are good, as long as they all share the same purpose (read: same application, no multi-tenant)

We all know that multi-users systems (and thus, containers) have a very wide attack surface, while VM attack surface is very limited ..

This is why I am totally convinced that:

  - redhat and friends are a terrible idea (licencing forces collocation which reduces segmentation)
  - per-instance pricing (read: cloud public, but not only that) are terrible: for the same reason. Paying per consumed CPU/ram is sane, paying per VM unit is damageful
Yes that is reasonable, but dispensing with all on machine controls is not.
isn't root level access one of the selling points of the cloud vm product line?
That doesn't mean you should run your services as root, it means other users are not sharing your machine/ kernel.
It is very good practical advice.

It also saddens me greatly, imagining what computing could look like if systems evolved differently.