My opinion on this....I'm busy running my company. Not always the best at patching. At least hosted on a data center someone's job is to make sure patches are applied
Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone ----- Reply message ----- From: "Simon Westlake" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: [AFMUG] Sonar Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2017 10:03 AM Experian is an interesting point. They were hacked because of a flaw in Apache Struts. So, no matter where it's hosted, the flaw exists and can be exploited. If you host it locally, you can't patch the software any differently, you're reliant on the vendor. So the only difference is, do you have better security in place than somebody else? Maybe. My experience in dealing with people in general has been that they do not. I am not really trying to convince anyone of anything, it is not a right and wrong answer. You want things locally, there are solutions. But I think a lot of these examples aren't really that valid in most cases. If you can backup your data the same, then it makes no difference from a backup perspective. If you can't keep using the software without a licensing server being available, then it makes no difference, unless your intention is to try to reverse engineer the software and remove the licensing requirement. If you are not implementing stronger security than the company who would otherwise be hosting it for you, then you are worse off than you would be. If you want it locally because you are going to secure the hell out of it, back it up better than the vendor, and you can keep using it if they go out of business, then it's a good decision for you. I am really not pushing people to use cloud hosted stuff if they don't want to though. Anyone's desire to host locally is perfectly valid. Sonar is just the totally wrong product to look at if that's what you want. If you need to hammer in a nail, there's a hammer store down the street, don't come buy one of my wrenches and then yell at me because it sucks for hitting nails. On 10/18/2017 9:53 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: Is no one going to bring up Experian and the cloud hosting all of your data? That's a concern. If the "one" cloud hosting server has problems, your entire billing and operational system goes down. Maybe it's simply the piece of mind that everything I have is within arms reach. Like I said before, it all comes down to what people are actually buying. No one needs a Ferrari when a Toyota well outlasts them in every objective manner and yet people are buying them. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM, James Howard <[email protected]> wrote: Am I missing something here? What difference does it make if the software is cloud hosted or locally hosted if the license model is subscription either way? Mike might have been able to keep running it if he had a local copy but he wouldn’t have owned the license to do it legally. From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 9:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Sonar That's my point Josh. Wisp mon was cloudy only, so when the acquisition occurred Mike has no choice but to go to sonar. With a local he hosted application he could choose to run the old Wispmon software until he decides he wants to upgrade to something. On Oct 18, 2017, at 09:22, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: IIRC, version 3 you could have some of their services (not billing) on-prem. Version 4 had an on-prem ability, due to the very reasons I stated... a VM on your host is no different than a VM on my host from an OS\application perspective. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Josh Luthman" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 8:20:17 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Sonar Wispmon was cloud only wasn't it? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Oct 18, 2017 9:16 AM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: He always has a choice. On Oct 18, 2017 7:14 AM, "Matt Hoppes" <[email protected]> wrote: He didn't have a choice. His cloud-based billing provider went out of business and sold to sonar. So he doesn't even really have the option of running old software, he's being forced to upgrade. On Oct 18, 2017, at 07:55, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: Please don't become a Sonar customer just to demonize them because you don't like their service model. Seriously. That'd be a super shitty thing to do. On Oct 18, 2017 6:52 AM, "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> wrote: I will be using it shortly as Sonar bought WISPMon. All of the major billing\OSS platforms with modern features are also cloud-based, so there's not really anywhere else to go. That's fine for you that it works that way, but many WISPs are increasing their use of on-premises virtualization. What about your monitoring, DNS, RADIUS, syslog, Unimus, mail, etc., etc. servers? Yes, my reasons do outweigh arbitrary reasons to keep it in a cloud environment. Actually, I've been fairly quiet on this particular issue and will be increasing my advocacy efforts in this regard to all billing\OSS platforms. As I said, it's the SFP port of the billing\OSS world. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP From: "Darin Steffl" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:08:47 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Sonar I'm in agreement with Simon that it's much faster and reliable to host in the cloud than a server on site. It would cost me many more hours, hand holding, and worry if I had to host this server in my network. If I went on vacation and something happened, I'd be stressed. With sonar living in the cloud, there's less to worry about as it's hosted in a much more reliable datacenter than I could afford to build. It's also managed by sonar's team so if there's an issue, they take care of it. Stress free for me. I see why you might want to host it in house but those reasons do NOT outweigh all the benefits of letting sonar host it in the cloud for you and take care of the problems. Mike, if you don't like Simon's decision to leave it in the cloud, shut up and move on. There's no reason for you and Matt Hoppes to keep beating a dead horse and sound like a broken record. Use something else you're happy with and let the rest of us grow our business and make more $ while you two complain about a product you don't even use. Jeez ha On Oct 17, 2017 8:31 PM, "Seth Mattinen" <[email protected]> wrote: On 10/17/17 6:14 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Expect repeated harassment until a good reason is presented or you capitulate. It's the SFP of the billing\OSS world. I always welcome my competitors to have external dependencies. When they try to hand wave their problems away as vendor or cloud problems it helps me gain new customers. ~Seth Total Control Panel Login To: [email protected] From: 0100015f2fd4ae67-3368a041-7922-4df4-ad66-9902cceb04c4-000...@amazonses.com Remove amazonses.com from my allow list You received this message because the domain amazonses.com is on your allow list. -- Simon Westlake Email: [email protected] Phone: (702) 447-1247 US / (780) 900-1180 CA --------------------------- Sonar Software Inc The future of ISP billing and OSS https://sonar.software
