In article , Tim Watts
wrote:

I'm recognising the real world -

Not everyone lives in the same real world.

In my real world, spinning hard drives are susceptible to shock damage
and a variety of other modes of failure that a pure electronic device is
not.

ssds have *different* types of failures. they are not immune (nothing
is), and shock isn't an issue in the real world anyway. people don't
normally drop their computers or servers.

anyone who regularly drops hard drives has bigger issues to resolve.

What world do you live in?

not your imaginary one.

But that doesn't make it THE most robust device.

For the second time, I have never claimed that. I said it was "better".
because yuo are wrong, it;s that simple, ask google what type of drives
they use in their servers then argue with them that they should eb using
SSDs.

I'm not wrong.

yes you are.

Google design redundancy in at a server level and at a high factor (ie
they'll tolerate more that one device in a group failing.

that's not unique to google. anyone can have a redundant server.

This only translates to backups *if* you are prepared to back up to
several spinning disks.

what's to prepare? enable backups and the computer does the rest.

Most normal people struggle with backing things up at all.

separate problem, and one which has been resolved.

Ergo a more
expensive less likely to fail due to accidents/mechanical issues device
is generally what I recommend for that type of user.

even if that were true (which it isn't), it doesn't solve the real
problem of people struggling to make backups.

the best solution is an automatic backup strategy using a nas which
syncs to a cloud service. set it and forget it.

manually backing up up to multiple devices is asking for trouble.