"I understand this is a volunteer effort, but it's not a good look."
I would agree, that it is not a good look for this society, to lament so much about the big evil corporations and invest so little in the free alternatives.
I would agree, that it is not a good look for this society, to lament so much about the big evil corporations and invest so little in the free alternatives.
Having two servers in two basements not near each other would be good, having five would be better, and honestly paying money to put them in colo facilities to have more reliable power, cooling, etc. would be better still. Computer hardware is very cheap today and it doesn't cost that much money to get a substantial amount of redundancy, without being dependent on any single big company.
They can then probably whip up a new hosted server to take over within a few days, at most. Big deal.
They are not hosting a critical service, and running on donations. They are doing everything right.
I bet the server should be quite powerful, with tons of CPU, RAM and SSD/NVMe to allow for fast builds. Memory of all kinds was getting more and more expensive this year, so the prolonged sourcing is understandable.
The trusted contributor, as the text says, is considered more trustworthy than an average colocation company. Maybe they have an adequate "basement", e.g. run their own colo company, or something.
It would be great to have a spare server, but likely it's not that simple, including the organization and the trust. A build server would be a very juicy attack target to clandestinely implant spyware.
As long as you don't need RAM or hard drives. It's getting more expensive all the time too. This isn't the ideal moment to replace a laptop let alone a server.