标签：#mise

Introduction: When Does On-Premises Outpace the Cloud? For small businesses like ComputeLabs , the decision between on-premises servers and cloud services isn’t just about cost—it’s about predictable stability versus elastic flexibility. With stable workloads (websites, email, file storage, backups, internal apps), the question narrows: Does a one-time server purchase amortized over 5–7 years beat monthly cloud bills? The answer hinges on a total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis , where upfront CAPEX collides with recurring OPEX , and hidden costs lurk in both models. The CAPEX vs. OPEX Tug-of-War On-premises servers demand a high initial investment —hardware, software licenses, setup. For a small business, this could mean $5,000–$15,000 upfront , depending on specs. Cloud services, in contrast, operate on a pay-as-you-go model , with monthly costs averaging $100–$500 for similar workloads. But here’s the catch: Cloud costs compound. Over 5 years, that’s $6,000–$30,000 —potentially double the on-premises CAPEX. The break-even point? When the cumulative cloud spend exceeds the depreciated server cost , typically 3–4 years in , assuming no major upgrades. Hidden Costs: The Silent Budget Killers On-premises servers aren’t just a one-time buy. Electricity (a 2U server consumes ~ 500W/hour , costing ~ $400/year ), cooling (fans degrade, heat expands components, shortening lifespan), and maintenance (disk failures, OS patches) add $500–$1,000/year. Cloud services mask these costs but introduce their own: data egress fees (AWS charges $0.09/GB for outbound transfers), premium support ( $100+/month ), and vendor lock-in (migrating data is costly). The edge case? Regulatory compliance —if data must stay on-premises, cloud costs become irrelevant, but self-managed security (firewalls, patches) becomes a non-negotiable expense. Scalability vs. Stability: The Workload Paradox Cloud’s elasticity is its strength—but for stable workloads, it’s overkill. An on-premises server sized

I mostly use Claude Code, but lately I've been using Codex CLI and Codex.app (hereafter "Codex") more often too. My environment is macOS. However, after I started using mise in [2026-03-29-1] , I ran into trouble because Codex wouldn't use the mise-managed Ruby, Node.js, and so on. Here's the state I was in: $ where ruby /usr/bin/ruby $ ruby --version ruby 2.6.10p210 (2022-04-12 revision 67958) [universal.arm64e-darwin25] The Solution I solved it by adding the following to ~/.zshenv : # When Codex CLI and Codex.app run commands, .zshrc's mise activate zsh doesn't take effect, # so add mise shims to PATH. if [ -n " $CODEX_SANDBOX " ] ; then PATH = ${ XDG_DATA_HOME } /mise/shims: $PATH fi Here's the state inside Codex after the change: $ where ruby /Users/masutaka/.local/share/mise/shims/ruby /usr/bin/ruby $ ruby --version ruby 4.0.5 (2026-05-20 revision 64336ffd0e) +PRISM [arm64-darwin25] Codex's Command Execution Environment Is a Sandbox I'd vaguely suspected this for a while, but it seems Codex's command execution environment runs inside a sandbox. You can spot the clues from within Codex: $ env | grep CODEX CODEX_CI=1 CODEX_SANDBOX=seatbelt CODEX_THREAD_ID=019e7806-6025-7c13-a3c6-a70d41c13905 "seatbelt" refers to Apple Seatbelt, which appears to be macOS's sandboxing mechanism. 🔗 macOSで手軽にSandbox環境を構築できるApple Seatbeltの実践ガイド しかしながら、Apple Seatbeltは公式にドキュメントを公開されておらず、非推奨とされています。一方で実際には多くのアプリケーションやツールで使用されています。 (English translation) However, Apple Seatbelt has no officially published documentation and is considered deprecated. Yet in practice, it's used by many applications and tools. I see... According to this article, Claude Code also adopts Apple Seatbelt, and I confirmed that it can be enabled with /sandbox (see the official documentation ). Coming from a background of being used to Claude Code, Codex's sandbox is hard to wrap my head around, but the following article covers it in detail. Much appreciated. 🔗 [Codex] sandbox実行の仕組みと設定方法を完全に理解する Codex also seems to r