tallship

neither of which so much as blinked when we quoted a price much higher than what they could get otherwise

And therein lies the business model of throwing good money after bad, and that's not even taking into consideration the enormous cost benefits of self-hosting with one's own physically colocated hardware infra and a meager full time staff.

Not batting an eye, or rather, "...so much as blinked", as you said, are bourne of business models with factored in wreckless budget kruft that may at first be acceptable until one merely scratches the surface of cost savings.

Even with a full time staff, and carrier hotel fees, the reliability and overall cost savings of self-hosting would likely not even exceed 15% of what the fully managed SaaS hosting package would cost - and two more points as well...

* Response time of support staff would be under 5 minutes.

* Dedicated support staff would actually need to "dedicate" very little actual man-hours to support functions, freeing them up to have their budgeted labor resources allocated elsewhere in the company most of the time.

This is a wonderfully stark and typical example of how to sell vendor lock-in for a FOSS solution... brilliant!

Hello @vivekweb2013, and thank you for creating this wonderful git based note utility.

I'd like to draw your attention to issue #59 and in the meantime I'll be posting a short Fediverse article, basically just an announcement at this point, with a much more in depth article to follow once the FOSS based git support enhancement is released.

.

So, how many servers loaned to you by other parties have revoked those loans.... besides the email server you're whining about?

How much of your network is actually left standing and operational after what? two days?

Over ten thousand channels have been recreated on the network that is the successor to yours... in one day.

How does that leave you feeling?

I recall just a few months ago when Amazon yanked the plug on hosting a company's infra with little more than 24hrs notice.

So I guess that's precedence for something like that, and yet, that company held a contract with Amazon to host their infra.... no such scenario in this case ;)

Indeed they/we do.

Well years ago at a convention I came across a little company that made Key caps out of Tempe, Arizona.

I bought a couple of bags of just two keys. Red panic buttons "Panic", and, "Any" keys.

We replaced the escape key cap with those when we sold new systems.

The "Any" key was a big hit and quite popular with the n00bs back in those AT (286) days.

I think I may still have a few of those around lolz.

Yeah not kewl at all. From some of the folks who brought us DRM.

This is a pretty interesting resource. Kind of like a pastiebin for quick and relatively candid file sharing

Considering that you don't know whether you can be sure that you've used a secure implementation, then the answer is a resounding, NO! It is not, by your own admission, 'safe' to publish any data that needs to remain secure in a publicly available setting.

Once you can answer yes to:

<snip> How can you be sure you've used a secure implementation? No idea </snip>

Then you will be able to ascertain for yourself whether your encrypted data, placed in a publicly available location, is "Safe Enough", "Secure Enough" for your needs.

It would be naive to assume that any data placed somewhere, encrypted or not, is stored with a completely invulnerable method.

That having been said, one must rise to the occasion of determining how secure something needs to be, and then availing oneself of the means to achieve that level of security.

I hope that helps, but in reality, there really isn't a cut and dried YES|NO answer - only relative levels of reasonable assurance in securing your data and communications.