What a terrible name. So it is non-private private networking, great distinction there DO. I wonder why people are confused..?
What about "Shared Intranet" instead. Why has the word "intranet" fallen out of style? And why use the word private to describe something that is inherently non-private by design?
I actually think the addition of this free inter-droplet channel is amazing (and a potential massive cost saver), but the name sucks.
Technically, I think they're correct with their definition[1]. However, they should be more explicit with the "Shared" part and have some better documentation rather than an announcement blog post[2], a community guide[3], and a moderator comment on that community guide [4]. Especially in today's privacy-conscious world.
Having said that, people who are concerned about privacy should always be validating their setups themselves. The maxim of "trust but verify" comes to mind.
Couldn't you technically call the internet a non-private private network? It's all networks. The private/public part depends on the context you're talking about.
An example is that a network at starbucks is private to the people at the starbucks, but public in a sense that anyone there can connect.
Perhaps they should indicate "shared private" more clearly in the droplet settings. Their usage of private network seems to be just referring to RFC 1918 addresses an not much else but many people will infer more than that.
What about "Shared Intranet" instead. Why has the word "intranet" fallen out of style? And why use the word private to describe something that is inherently non-private by design?
I actually think the addition of this free inter-droplet channel is amazing (and a potential massive cost saver), but the name sucks.