A server that wasn't meant to exist

Nature of the fraud and “tools” the author lacked

• Some readers think the author should have accepted the “name your price” offer and demanded full authority and tools (including over people and processes).
• Others infer that a key blocker was a protected insider: owners knew someone was diverting money, but felt they “couldn’t afford” to remove them because that person could seriously harm the businesses.
• The author confirms: no organized crime, but significant internal theft and abuse of trust; owners eventually tolerated it as long as “there was enough money for everyone.”
• Several commenters speculate on forms of fraud (invoicing abuse, skimming, possibly tax-related), but details remain intentionally vague.

Backups, data survival, and small‑business IT

• Multiple commenters connect the story to the importance of off‑site backups and immutable history, especially when someone is actively trying to destroy evidence.
• The author clarifies this was ~2009; backups used rsync + hard‑link–based history to a server at the owner’s house.
• Some question why not use a data center or cloud; others note slow connections, local Samba file serving, and that even cloud data can be wiped with the wrong admin access.

How easy fraud and bad accounting are

• Several anecdotes describe lax accounting where invoices get paid with minimal verification; people have successfully billed large companies and municipalities for bogus services.
• Commenters observe that mid‑level managers or PMs can funnel large sums via “external work” or vendor invoices, often only discovered years later or during leadership shakeups.
• Theme: small discrepancies at big scale go unnoticed; “the optimal amount of fraud is non‑zero” for many organizations.

Dishonesty vs honesty outcomes

• Debate over the line “sometimes dishonest people win”:
  • Some argue dishonest actors, in aggregate, win disproportionately because they can choose honesty or dishonesty per situation.
  • Others push back that definitions of “dishonest” are fuzzy and that reputational costs and prosecutions matter.

Nonprofits and structural graft (tangent)

• Long sub‑thread claims large charities/NGOs often harbor legal graft, cushy leadership roles, and weak transparency.
• Discussion branches into tax avoidance structures, foundation ownership of companies, and whether “insane” tax levels justify aggressive avoidance.
• Counterpoint stresses citizen responsibility in democratic oversight and that lobbying exploits, but does not fully explain, systemic failures.

Writing style and presentation

• Some readers dislike the “line break after every sentence” style, finding it hard to read; others say it increased suspense or didn’t bother them.
• Author notes the formatting was an attempt to build tension that may have backfired in readability.