> 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.
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 ;)
For Andrew, the spoiled little boy with an empty toybox:
You own a brand. That's basically it. And then swing in like Tarzan to save the day from the sunshine and suddenly, all of the organizations that provided *Their* infra to *the cause*, *the spirit*, and *the philosophy* of giving back to the community took back their infra and..... suddenly the little boy realizes that his toybox is empty - Sure! Little boy owns that toybox, but all the toys inside were gracious contributions loaned to the hard working team of volunteers that no longer work for you.
Yup! we're taking back our boxes and wiping the data and repurposing those resources that We, the companies and individuals that made your little starship go, and we're using our property to reallocate those resources either to other noble causes or paying customers - of which you have neither (noble causes or paying customers Andrew).
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.
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!