Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook was down

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 294 posts

Re: Facebook was down

#271

Post by [deleted] »

Hates_ wrote: post #268
pkorzeniewski wrote: post #264

That's why I can't comprehend companies using SaaS solutions like Slack or HipChat for something as crucial as internal communication, that requires a connection to an external server to work. What's even more scary is the data leakage risk - with DDoS you know when something bad happens, because the service simply doesn't work, but with data leakage how can you tell? Every single conversation stored on a 3rd party s…

What about solutions like Dropbox or Gmail? Or even plain old email for that matter. Even if you look after those yourself, how can you be 100% sure that you can offer a service that is more secure and reliable than a third party?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook was down

#272

Post by neotek »

tempodox wrote: post #262

Funny how an outage of something as pointless as facebook generates this humongous comment count. But then, some source material for http://www.lamebook.com may have been lost...

I don't get how anyone could think that Facebook, a platform that has literally defined a paradigm shift in the way people communicate across the planet, could be genuinely considered pointless.

It's okay not to like Facebook, and there are many good reasons to be sceptical about them as a company, but to call them pointless is so utterly myopic that it beggars belief.

Re: Facebook was down

#273

Post by randomsearch »

pkorzeniewski wrote: post #269
randomsearch wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are, say, a startup with sensitive information being discussed in an IRC server that you run, do you really think your data would be more secure then? Keep in mind that you can't afford a security expert (or your own time) to admin your system if you're a small business. As for reliability, I've been using Slack for months without a single outage. If it went down for a day, the impact would be minimal -- I'd j…

How about P2P connections, so nothing leave your company's internal network, because why should it? It's the most secure and reliable solution, but even running an IRC server on a local machine is so easy that you don't need an admin.

Easy, yes. But very secure? No.

Re: Facebook was down

#274

Post by akerl_ »

peteretep wrote: post #217
eridius wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing to gain? Taking down Facebook seems like something that would bolster their rep significantly. If they think they can claim credit for it and get away with it, then there seems to be little reason why they wouldn't. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if Facebook makes any public statements as to what the cause of the outage was.

> seems like something that would bolster their rep > significantly And then irretrievably kill it if they were shown to be lying.

Except that proving they didn't do it turns out to be much harder, because any amount of contrary announcement or evidence can be handwaved away as lies and misdirection. It's roughly akin to trying to talk to conspiracy theorists about 9/11.

Re: Facebook was down

#275

Post by tempodox »

neotek wrote: post #272
tempodox wrote: post #262

Funny how an outage of something as pointless as facebook generates this humongous comment count. But then, some source material for http://www.lamebook.com may have been lost...

I don't get how anyone could think that Facebook, a platform that has literally defined a paradigm shift in the way people communicate across the planet, could be genuinely considered pointless. It's okay not to like Facebook, and there are many good reasons to be sceptical about them as a company, but to call them pointless is so utterly myopic that it beggars belief.

I was calling fb pointless from my own point of view. Obviously, lots of people disagree, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten that big. And I’m sure that every single user has their (valid) opinion on what “the point” of fb is for them. But as far as I'm concerned, I'll still call it pointless — no offence.

Re: Facebook was down

#278

Post by SEJeff »

danso wrote: post #112
bombtrack wrote: post #92

Obviously anyone can "take credit" for things like this, but if this[1] is true, then jesus. Edit: Since it's topical, I enjoy listening to Chuck Rossi in interviews or presentations. Releng 2014 - Keynote 1: Chuck Rossi, Release Engineering, Facebook Inc. | Talks at Google [2] [1] https://twitter.com/lizardmafia/status/559963134006292481 [2] http://youtu.be/Nffzkkdq7GM?t=4m39s

A few years ago, who would've guessed that Twitter would be the major service still standing during such a mass attack?

Before they had Mesos, they wouldn't have.

Re: Facebook was down

#279

Post by clarkm »

pkorzeniewski wrote: post #264

That's why I can't comprehend companies using SaaS solutions like Slack or HipChat for something as crucial as internal communication, that requires a connection to an external server to work. What's even more scary is the data leakage risk - with DDoS you know when something bad happens, because the service simply doesn't work, but with data leakage how can you tell? Every single conversation stored on a 3rd party s…

We self-host our own HipChat servers, so they weren't affected by this.
Post reply on HN