zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. chrisj+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-03 19:24:26
"setup and execution".
replies(1): >>otterl+K5
2. otterl+K5[view] [source] 2026-02-03 19:50:14
>>chrisj+(OP)
What serious operator of a service isn't budgeting time to implement and operate critical maintenance functions?
replies(1): >>chrisj+Z7
◧◩
3. chrisj+Z7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 20:00:33
>>otterl+K5
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+5k >>otterl+8k1
◧◩◪
4. mr_mit+5k[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 20:55:34
>>chrisj+Z7
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+5y
◧◩◪◨
5. chrisj+5y[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-03 22:10:22
>>mr_mit+5k
> 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.

◧◩◪
6. otterl+8k1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 03:16:16
>>chrisj+Z7
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]