Comment by throwawaylinux

I was asking about the context of the conversation. And I answered it for you. It's the likelihood of the risk. Two computers in two different locations can and do fail.

> You are wrong about that: Nobody cares if something is "designed to be durable according to the definition in the design".

No I'm not, that's what the word means and that's how it's used. That's how it's defined in operating systems, that's how it's defined by disk manufacturers, that's how it's used by people who write databases.

> That's just more weasel words.

No it's not, its the only sane definition because all hardware and software is different, and so is everybody's appetite for risk and cost. And you don't know what any of those things are in any situation.

> They care what are the risks, how you actually protect against them, and what it costs to do. That's it.

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Lots of people (e.g., personal users) store a lot of their data on a single device for significant periods of time, because that's reasonably durable for their use.