zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. chrisj+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:19:10
I mean cost of server setup and execution.
replies(1): >>otterl+uK
2. otterl+uK[view] [source] 2026-02-03 19:20:07
>>chrisj+(OP)
The server that is providing the content exists already. That's a sunk cost.
replies(1): >>chrisj+IL
◧◩
3. chrisj+IL[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 19:24:26
>>otterl+uK
"setup and execution".
replies(1): >>otterl+sR
◧◩◪
4. otterl+sR[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 19:50:14
>>chrisj+IL
What serious operator of a service isn't budgeting time to implement and operate critical maintenance functions?
replies(1): >>chrisj+HT
◧◩◪◨
5. chrisj+HT[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 20:00:33
>>otterl+sR
Me for one. Adding an auto-updating IP address blocker to my personal blog site would probably cost more than setting up the whole site did in the first place.
replies(2): >>mr_mit+N51 >>otterl+Q52
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. mr_mit+N51[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 20:55:34
>>chrisj+HT
We're talking about sites that make their living via subscriptions. They should have a great interest at blocking archive.is, which is, by the way, the only service that can reliably bypass many paywalls. Clearly whatever they're doing is not easily replicated.
replies(1): >>chrisj+Nj1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
7. chrisj+Nj1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 22:10:22
>>mr_mit+N51
> We're talking about sites that make their living via subscriptions.

Sorry, but I wasn't. I thought that was clear from "can't afford the cost of keeping up-to-date with the Google IP list".

> They should have a great interest at blocking archive.is

Agreed, and many should have a budget to suit. So I conclude archive.is has put a lot of effort and cost into its defence. And all for free to us, the users.

◧◩◪◨⬒
8. otterl+Q52[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 03:16:16
>>chrisj+HT
Have you actually priced it, or are you just guessing?

Are you doing regular patching? Automated restarts? Watching for security breaches? Or just praying it stays up forever?

Otherwise, respectfully, I would not classify you as a "serious operator." Your site could live or die, and it would be all the same to you. Or, you've handed it to a third party for management and they don't offer much in the way of resilience or stability.

[go to top]