Hacker News
points by dahcryn 1 day ago | 0 comments
that's just a false sense of security. A machine should be treated as a whole. Separate components only matter economically, not for data security.

My macbook updates my documents etc to my NAS, and the NAS syncs to crucial folders to the cloud (not everything for cost reasons)

You should always assume your device can be stolen, you can spill fluids on it (or a guest), a cat can pee on it, an electric shock may kill it... No matter how great care you take of it, shit happens, data needs to be safe.

The SSD dying standalone vs the system dying doesn't change at all for data security. It's not a different risk factor

[–] fizzynut 1 day ago
It's the same "risk" but a completely different probability for anyone technical because any minor failure is now a critical failure.

I wouldn't choose to buy a car I use every day that's 100x less reliable than a normal car.

[–] katbyte 1 day ago
Hard drives failing is a far more common problem in my experience. As is theft and loss - one should always treat a laptop as if it will fail at any moment and keep good backups.

If your looking for arguments against soldered storage the facts ssds are wear items and will eventually need replacement is a much better one.

[–] fizzynut 1 day ago
If almost ANY failure means the laptop is basically bricked then even with good backups it means days or weeks before being back up to speed, having a working laptop with recovered data, esp. when working on highly confidential data as agreements can mean you cannot upload the data to a cloud.

If given a choice, I prefer a system where a HDD/RAM/GPU/CPU/PSU/Screen/Port/Battery/Keyboard failure is barely if at all disruptive to one where all of these effectively brick the system.

[–] hulitu 19 hours ago
> A machine should be treated as a whole.

... single point of failure. /s