On Sep 16, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Bob Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > I would have bet 100 bucks that your reply would include a RackSpace :)
I only offered that for comparison. You didn't get my sales pitch. ;-) > Btw, you could do the same thing with Amazon, so you could host a > webserver on their EC2 and the database - as managed service (called RDS) > and if you only wanted Webpage access - or WebService access to your > database then you would have to hit the Ec2 webserver . You can do that on any cloud - I was curious about what they offered security-wise for a public-facing database. > This model, is I feel the best and only way to move forward, with everything > from document storage,phone systems to email, to database / images etc etc. > I cant think of a reason every to back an in house server again. Every > time over the past few years where we have had to think about purchasing a > new server, we found a better alternative in some sort of hosted solution. There will always be some cases, though, where companies simply cannot move to a publicly hosted model. Financial and medical data are probably the most common cases, but many non-US companies cannot host in US data centers ever since the Patriot Act, and the recent Prism revelations have shown that they were not being paranoid. There will always be a need for companies to have privately-hosted data. -- Ed Leafe _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
