Yep, I am aware of the contradiction. I used to, but since then I moved to an alias as it was not worth wasting a domain for a single address. I may spend eventually the time to setup PGP for the alias itself, but I just didn't. It's a Proton alias, so I get anyway PGP encryption, though (obviously without all the features, but good enough for the near-zero volume I currently have).

Yep I agree. Especially looking at all the usernames that are tried. I do the same and the only risk come from SSH vulnerabilities. Since nobody would burn a 0-day for SSH (priceless) on my server, unattended upgrades solve this problem too for the most part.

I think I used it in the past. Is the one where every X months you need to go the the console and confirm the domain is still used, right?

I think nowadays there are better options (incl. Free) with less maintenance and more flexibility

No, it's not true. A single system has less failure scenarios, because it doesn't depend on external controllers or anything that makes the system distributed and that can fail causing a failure to your system (which may or may not be tolerated).

This is especially true from a security standpoint: complexity adds attack surface.

Simple example: a kubernetes cluster has more failure scenarios than a single node. With the node you have hardware failure, misconfiguration of the node, network failure. With a kubernetes cluster you have all that for each node (each with marginally less impact, potentially, because it depends for example on stateful storage, that if you mitigate you are introducing other failure scenarios as well), plus the fact that if the control plane goes in flames your node is useless, if the etcd data corrupts your node is useless, anything that happens with resources (a bug, a misuse of the API, etc.) can break your product. You have more failure scenarios because your product to run is dependent on more components to work at the same time. This is what it means that complexity brings fragility. Looking from the security side: an instance can be accessed only from SSH, if you are worried about compromise you have essentially one service to secure. Once you run on kubernetes you have the CI/CD system, the kubernetes API, the kubernetes supply-chain, etcd, and if you are in cloud you have plenty of cloud permissions that can indirectly grant you access to the control plane and to a console. Now you need to secure 5-6-7 entrypoints to a node.

Mind you, I am not advocating against the use of complex systems, sometimes they are necessary, but if the complexity is not fully managed and addressed, you have a more fragile system. Essentially complexity is a necessary evil to respond to some other necessities.

This is the reason why nobody would recommend to someone who needs to run a single static website to run it on Kubernetes, for example.

You say "a well designed system", but designing well is harder the more complexity exists, obviously. Redundancy doesn't always work, because redundancy needs coordination, needs processes that also depend on external components.

In any case, I agree that you can build a robust system within Cloud! The argument I am trying to make is that:

• you need to be aware that you are introducing complexity that needs attention and careful design if you don't want it to result in more fragility and exposure
• you need to spend way more money
• you need to balance the cost with the actual benefits you are gaining

And mind you, everything you can do in Cloud you can also do on your own, if you invest on it.

If your compute needs expand that much everyday, and possibly shrink in others, than your use-case is one that can benefit from Cloud (I covered this in the post).

That said, if provisioning means recycle, then it's obviously not a problem.

This is a very rare requirement. Most companies' load is fairly stable and relatively predictable, which means that with a proper capacity planning, increasing compute resources is something that happens rarely too. So rarely that even a lead time for hardware is acceptable.

So if I may ask (and you can tell), what is the purpose of provisioning that many systems each day? Are they continuously expanding?

I wish it worked like that, but I donct think it does. Connecting clouds means introducing many complex problems. Data synchronization and avoiding split-brain scenarios, a network setup way more complex, stateful storage that needs to take into account all the quirks and peculiarities of all services across all clouds, service accounts and permissions that need to be granted and segregated for all of them, and way more. You may gain resilience in some areas, but you introduce a lot more things that can fail, be misconfigured or compromised.

Plus, a complex setup makes it harder by definition to identify SPOFs, especially considering it's very likely nobody in the workforce is going to be an expert in all the clouds in use.

To keep using your simile of the disks, a single disk with a backup might be a better solution for many people, considering you otherwise might need a RAID controller that can fail and all the knowledge to handle and manage a RAID array properly, in addition to paying 4 or 5 times the storage. Obviously this is just to make a point, I don't actually think that RAID 5 vs JBOD introduces comparable complexity compared to what multi-cloud architecture does to single-cloud.

I wouldn't say that namespaces are virtualization either. Container don't virtualize anything, namespaces are all inherited from the root namespaces and therefore completely visible from the host (with the right privileges). It's just a completely different technology.

I used to run systemd units that just start docker-compose files, that's also a thing, I suppose. Also generally it's easy to manage the container directly (killing/restarting) without the needed lifecycle a systemd unit gives, I would say.