> I mean, that, as a minimum, means you're running and maintaining a Windows server, along with antivirus, backups for the OS, and backups for the database.
By contrast, if you're on the LAMP stack then you won't need a Linux box, and since you don't have a server you definitely won't need to secure it or back it up. It'll all just run on clouds or something, I guess.
No, the point is relative to being containerized, where you're deciding ahead of time what needs to be backed up (outside the container) and what doesn't. This leads to backups and restores being easier and more "boring."
It's also counter to one of themes of the post, which suggests by choosing this boring stack, he can just leave it alone for months at a time without touching it (presumably relative to other stacks). You can do that--but it's not like you're not still on duty for making sure these things are still working and happening.
EDIT: For clarity:
You can set up a multi-AZ MySQL database instance on AWS, with whatever backup schedule you want, using a single API command. That is decidedly doing a lot of things under the hood, but I don't care--it gets done, and the backups get made to S3, and I don't have to handle it myself. It even (optionally) does minor updates for me and swaps masters automatically while doing them. To me, this is a great example of "boring."
Now compare that to setting up and maintaining something similar with SQL Server. It doesn't mean I don't have to secure or backup my MySQL database instance--it's just a whole lot more "boring" in the good way.
At least in the case of the database, I don't think I'd ever be willing to accept outside-the-container backups as a sufficient strategy. Not if I'm in a position to be held responsible for data loss, anyway. But that's me and my baggage.
That said, if you've got other reasons for wanting containerization, MS SQL Server can be containerized nowadays. Or you can choose a slightly different stack if you've got other reasons for wanting to not use MSSQL (cough cough price cough). Or you can shove it all into AWS or Azure or whatever and get on with your life, same as Linux. It's all good. Maybe the article's author is doing none of that, and that's fine too. Boring and old is a subjective thing, and has a lot to do with what you already know and have down cold. On the other side of that coin, it takes only a little bit of unfamiliarity to create and/or perceive something to be an unmanageable mess.
Yep. Sorry--my original point is getting derailed. I was responding to someone suggesting that it's ridiculous to take into account things like backups and security because those things are necessary on any platform.
The comparison was to illustrate that although those concepts exist on any platform, comparing the maintenance / backup / security of a database server you maintain yourself versus a managed instance shows significant differences.
By contrast, if you're on the LAMP stack then you won't need a Linux box, and since you don't have a server you definitely won't need to secure it or back it up. It'll all just run on clouds or something, I guess.