Exactly my thoughts too. Lots of theory about why it won’t work, but not looking at the fact that if people use it, maybe it does work, and when it won’t work, they will stop using it.

This is contradicting the neoliberal mantra, that it is totally the individuals fault and thereby justified.

Sorta. But anyway, neoliberalism is far from the only oppressive ideology.

Also Islam with its prohibition of interest is incompatibile with capitalism

I really don’t think so. Interests are not really a foundational pillar of capitalism. Private property of means of production is.

obey God

And did god (or gods) speak to them? Or there is always a translation layer that includes other people; prophets, messiahs, clergy, shamans, visionaries, etc.? Still a hierarchy. Still a means of control. Who decides what the gods say controls people. That’s exactly the problem with religion.

About the soviet union and other antireligious countries: there are multiple ideologies that can lead to oppression. I am definitely not going to say that without religion oppression wouldn’t exist. I am saying that religion is an enabler for it.

Derubricating everything to the “external” imperial forces is dismissive and forgets centuries of violent history, including those of Muslim empires. Islam, like most religions is bigoted, intolerant and barbaric.

A common argument is that Jesus would be a socialist by todays definitions

And that’s nonsense.

I agree with you that the institutionalization is an issue, but that is an issue of the particular institutions, not the religion itself.

No, I think it’s actually religion and religious thinking specifically the problem. Institutionalized religion is just the natural consequence of the issue.

Religion is fundamentally a reactionary ideology because it prescribes an external entity (or entities) which decided how things should be. This deresponsibilizes people and inherently justifies the existing. All the religious emancipation still happens under the umbrella of a reality that has to work in a certain way.

For example, most religions tend to accept suffering and poverty as a given, as a test or as something that in general is by design. Assigning virtue to being oppressed (like in case of some Christian messages) is far from a revolutionary stance, it’s a tool aimed at controlling those who are oppressed.

If in millennia every religion ever has been used to crystalize a power hierarchy in humanity (from the clergy to caste systems), maybe there is a reason. And the reason is that religious thinking and mindset inherently enables these hierarchies.

So accommodating and tolerant. Many countries have the death penalty for apostates, in others it might be technically legal but you would still face harassment from police and general institutions. Isn’t this wonderful?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam_by_country

Classic overcorrection I have seen many times: western countries have mostly a Christianity problem, and to counter the bigotry, racism and intolerance, progressive people take the defense of other barbaric, intolerant and bigot religions.

This is especially frustrating when it comes from a leftist perspective. Religion is a form of institutionalized control and oppression, and as such is a fundamental enemy of the working class.

The weather man? I think he fit very well. Same for Lord of War. I know they are both 20 years old, but still.

But the estimation is with each NC instance with half a CPU and 1GB of memory. This is a super conservative estimation, that doesn’t include anything besides a tiny Fargate deployment and Aurora instances.

Edit: fargate ($40/month), the tiniest Aurora instances at 20% utilization and with merely 50GB storage ($120/month). Missing s3, which will easily cost $50 in storage and transfer (for only a few TB), ALBs and network traffic, especially outbound (easily $50-100 depending on volumes).

This basic solution’s real cost is already between $150 and $300/month. I don’t know NC enough to understand volumes on DBs and all usage, but I assume that it’s going to be lots of data in and out (backups, media, etc.). —edit—

For a heavily used NC instance (assuming a company offering it as a service), the cost is going to become massive pretty fast.

Also, as I side note, if a company is offering NC as a service, but doesn’t manage a single piece of NC deployment… What is the company product? And most importantly, how are they going to make money when AWS is going to eat a linearly scalable chunk of their revenue forever?

Well yeah, wouldn’t break the bank, but a conservative cost estimate (without considering network costs, for example, quite relevant for a data intensive app) would bring this setup to about $40/month. That is about 5 times more expensive than a VPC with 4x the resources.

OP said this is some sort of “enterprise self-hosting” solution, which I guess then kind of makes sense. For a company providing nextcloud as a service I would never vendor lock myself and let AWS take a huge chunk of my revenue forever, but I can imagine folks have different opinions.

In that case, Pulumi permissions are too broad IMHO for what it has to do, an enterprise should adhere to least privilege. Likewise, as I wrote in another comment, the egress security groups are unclear to me (why any traffic at all is needed?) and the image consumed should be pinned to a digest. Or better yet, should be coming from a private enterprise registry, ideally with an attestation that can be verified at runtime.

I am not sure ECS Fargate makes sense vs an ec2 instance to run the workload. This setup alone will cost about $30/month assuming half a vCPU per replica with Fargate, plus about $12 for the memory (1GB/task). 2xt2.micro could be run for ~$20 without even considering reservation discounts etc. Obviously the gap will become even larger at scale, which I suppose might be very interesting for an enterprise.

Plus, at this point why not using directly managed Nextcloud (or alternatives)… If anyway you use a managed storage, runtime and database, in a vendor lock…

Oh yeah, I am aware. Mostly here I would question the idea to have multi-AZ redundancy and using a manage service for DB (which indeed is expensive). All of this when a 5$ VPS could host the same (maybe still using s3 for storage) and accept the few hours downtime in the rare event your VPS explodes and you need to restore it from a backup.

So from my PoV this is absolutely overkill but I concede that it depends a lot on the requirements. I can’t ever imagine having requirements so tight that need such infra to run (in fact, I think not even most businesses have these requirements, I have written on the topic at https://loudwhisper.me/blog/hating-clouds/) for my personal stuff…

Everyone is free to pick their poison, but I have to ask…why? What is the target audience here? This is a massively overkill architecture IMHO. Not to talk about the fact you now need 3 managed services (fargate, s3 and aurora at least) for a single self hosted tool, and that is being generous (not counting cloudwatch, ALBs, etc.).

• Why do you need security groups to allow egress anywhere (or, at all)?
• I would pin the image to a digest, rather than using latest.
• what is the average monthly cost for this infra for you?

Really annoying interaction. I am out. Cya.

That’s not the argument, and you know it, which you need to understand, now it makes it even harder not to think maliciously about the good faith you bring to the conversation.

In case you actually care about it: I feel your statement not only unfairly characterizes white men (not all of them, taking blame for other demographics too etc., etc.,) which who cares, but also is completely exclusionary of all those women who were are not historically oppressed by white men, for example those in different parts of the world, those themselves part of racial minorities etc., and that’s what I think is racist. Of course, in that US-centric perspective the world is the same as for Hollywood disaster movies…

You disagree for sure, but since you were interested in comedy…

Fair enough.

However, OP stood by his statement:

Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.

So I guess your interpretation was too generous, mine slightly too strict.

You meant to write what you wrote, I assumed…?

But I see we are going in circles. So far you are leaning on “that’s the common oppressor” which sounds silly to me if I am being honest. But anyway, whatever. I stand by the fact that your original statement is either extremely US-centric (and frankly a bit racist from multiple points of view) or just generally incorrect. Don’t need to convince you or change your mind. So have a good day/evening/whatever.

Are you implying that minorities aren’t oppressed and don’t need safe spaces?

What? My only qualm is that you added white to a sentence about gender oppression. Of course minorities are oppressed and need safe spaces.

which I assert is true in the vast majority of the world where English (the language we are speaking) is the primary language for the country

What has the language we are speaking (which is not even my language) to do with what is “historically” true or not? Is this just a classic example of US exceptionalism or what?

Including both in the same sentence is because of the common shared group of oppressors, white men.

Minorities are also oppressed by way more demographics than white men (EDIT: example, gay people are also oppressed by non-white men, so technically the common group of oppressor is already larger than white men).

If you want any statement to be true for literally the entire world, then your expectations are unreasonable.

Saying that men oppressed women is a much, much, much more accurate statement, for example. There are always exceptions, but we are talking about different things.

Absolutely not true. The critique is based on adding a racial connotation to gender oppression, which is completely orthogonal to it.

To be even more frank, saying that women and minorities need safe spaces because white men historically oppressed them is complete bonkers. Women need safe spaces because men historically oppressed them, and that is true all around the world, in almost all communities.

I literally took your words literally, as I quoted and addressed the very sentence you wrote. You decided to add white to a sentence that didn’t need it. It’s already the second comment where you refuse to elaborate and instead you indulge in meta-conversation. So for the sake of clarity, discard everything I have said so far, and allow me to simply ask what did you mean with that sentence?

The rest of the critique remains nevertheless.

I wasn’t referring to technical communities and it’s strange you would assume that.

I didn’t assume it. I made an example using those. You said “I have no relevant knowledge or experience”, and technical communities are a perfect example of communities in which someone might not have “relevant knowledge or experience”.

There’s a difference between not participating and being told not to participate. One requires self-moderation, and not everyone is great at it.

Yes, that is my whole point. However you answered to someone that said:

Being set to public is for a community that everyone in the public can participate in, while being set to private is for a community that only some people can participate in.

with (paraphrasing) “there are plenty of communities I can see that I don’t participate in”, which confuses me now in light of your acknowledgement that it’s completely different choosing not to engage and being told not to engage (via rules).

The existence of exclusive, toxic groups doesn’t make exclusivity toxic.

Which is also not what I said. I said that “harsh form of gatekeeping” is considered toxic.

Weird you’re comparing a women’s only instance to communities who are cruel to outsiders/beginners.

I am not. I made you examples of toxic forms of harsh gatekeeping since you said:

Do we? And is that form of gatekeeping harsh, or do you think anything that excludes you is “toxic?”

The rest of your comment is completely off topic, since this whole comment chain was holding on the whole idea of “make the thing private instead”. I don’t have any problem, in fact I perfectly agree and support, with the creation of private, exclusive spaces. I have no problem with a women shelter not allowing me in, but if a hotel does that, I probably won’t take it as well.

P.s. Maybe hold off on the assumptions, because you made a lot of them in your comment about my positions.

No it doesn’t exclude that, but it also unnecessarily mixes racial with gender discrimination, and in a general statement like that is odd to do that. The intention I perceived was to link the creation of spaces that women (or minorities) require to white men discrimination only, which is absurd in my opinion.

To make a similar example, saying “gay people need their spaces, because they are historically discriminated by black women” doesn’t “exclude” that also men discriminate them, or that also white women do, but I hope you can see what an odd statement that is, and if someone would find it misogynistic or racist, I think they would be right.

Thinking maliciously, I would say that’s the classic way for a white guy (the commenter stated that about himself) to make a statement that is less controversial because it only “accuses” their own demographic and the most acceptable demographic to critique.