Comment on Least terrible domain registrars
gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 4 days agoI get that you’re likely exaggerating by saying “it’s no extra work”, but managing another account is markedly extra work. It will also cost extra because Cloudflare does not add any markup for registration.
I think the convenience and reduction of cost greatly outweighs the highly unlikely situation where “something goes fucky”. If it does, then what? You can’t make DNS updates for a little while?
The most likely reason to get locked out is billing issues, or maybe you lost your login information or something like that, which is going to be the same risk regardless of who your registrar is. Otherwise you’d have to be involved in some sort of legal issue associated with your domain and that is a much deeper issue than can be solved by simply changing nameservers.
ikidd@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Years ago I had a registrar go tits up without warning, taking about 70-80 active domains for an MSP’s customers with it. I managed their email servers and DNS, which was with the registar, of course. It was a bloody nightmare to recover that situation. Because we couldn’t supply them a DNS change to prove our control of the DNS, hence ownership of the domain, we had to individually affadavit each domain. Took weeks.
I get you don’t think it’s important, but there’s plenty of sysadmins that do, with experience backing that up.
gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 4 days ago
What registrar was that? Were they as big as Cloudflare? How exactly did they “go tits up”? Isn’t the situation you describe a completely different scope from an individual’s usecase? It’s also an anecdotal point of data without including the full context of how common that situation is. “It happened to me once, and I have heard stories” does not necessarily mean it’s common enough for everyone to prepare for every time. I’ll remain skeptical of the
Mainly, though, I’m not saying it’s a bad idea in total. I just think that for someone who is inexperienced with DNS management and self-hosting, those types of concerns are already unlikely and just keeping the environment simple and cost less has far more value than being prepared for unlikely scenarios. It could even prevent self-inflicted issues by keeping it simple, which would be far more likely than Cloudflare’s infrastructure creating a problem that they have to remediate themselves.
If anything, the true argument for risk mitigation would be to have multiple DNS servers for redundancy.
I just don’t believe that, in this type of usecase, it’s worth pressing for and that there’s more of an argument to keep it simple.
Additionally, you can leave out trying to use your credentials and a hypothetical group of people to make your argument for you. It makes it seem like you’re trying to talk down.
jonathan@lemmy.zip 4 days ago
This seems like a lot of text for saying “unless you can predict all the specific ways a bad thing could happen, I think putting all your eggs in one basket is fine.”
gofsckyourself@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Interesting how you feel the need to disingenuously misrepresent my point.
ouch@lemmy.world 3 days ago
I liked reading both of your arguments, and I think they have merit on both sides. I’m sorry to see this became hostile, but I think the discussion up go the parent comment was good. I hope next one will stay friendly!
ikidd@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Well, our discussion didn’t go too far off the rails, but it sure escalated with the other commenter. I think this guy just likes to argue.