Part of the power distribution question is answered, in a way that gives even more concerns, though. A single DC distribution without redundant PSUs? What if one of the servers trips a fuse?
By the way, the list of questions would go on. At least over here, DCs offer different rack footprints. They don't even list their footprint.
But most importantly: The TFM doesn't say "There is an experienced network engineer in the box that you will own and that will do the maintenance". Unless this is provided, this will blow up.
Again: I can imagine that they find a hand full of managers buying into this. Up until the date the first few of their racks have burned down a DC, or got hacked and all customer data stolen.
Come on, this is hacker news. Everybody here should know that nobody so far has found a way (not even via AI) to replace the competences many of us here have. Again, I understand that management would love to get rid of those expensive and annoying nerds, but the ACTUAL REALITY is: An unmaintened rack in a DC will go down in flames, and management people will be in tears.
So, let's just be realistic: Oxide is simply a terrible idea that will blow up. But I congratulate them for VCs falling for this.
Now, let's find a VC that is funding someone doing an IPMI system that is not shit, does not have access to all data of the server, and does not get hacked within 5 minutes after deploying it. That would address an ACTUAL need.
Sometimes it makes sense to ask those who you hope your future customers could be.
Yep, exactly. That's precisely the reason why this "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist is currently being praised as the soon to be heir of the throne of computing
