4 ms·

Dear aws, Could you guys take it easy for a moment with spawning new weird services like horny hamsters, reflect on the ~372 you already have, and fix some asp

by avip 9y ago

Dear aws, Could you guys take it easy for a moment with spawning new weird services like horny hamsters, reflect on the ~372 you already have, and fix some aspects of them? How about letting me add basic auth to S3 or CloudFront? How about non-expiring signed s3 urls? How about restricted access to api-gateway? Hey, how about fixing Athena to stop throwing random errors, and actually support the fully featured presto syntax? I could extend this list with 64 items more without even opening my dedicated aws complains notebook.

alexbilbie 9y ago
You can implement basic auth using Lambda@Edge. You could also implement your own non-expiring signed URLs with Lambda@Edge too.
- avip 9y ago
  Yes. I know how to solve all the issues on my list. But I'm paying aws a fortune for them to solve my problems, not for me to find workarounds. /end rant [EDIT: Also, slightly drifting - me solving an aws issue is inefficient in the big scheme of things. We'd have N developers solving the same problem, each to himself. That's a DRY violation. And we can't even estimate the waste, lacking an aws issues/voting system]
- spaceseaman 9y ago
  rolls eyes Is there some reason programmers feel this need to bring up workarounds when I'm looking for an actual solution? If I could count how many answers on StackOverflow are just "well if you use JQuery..." or "Well if you use Boost...". Address the point the person you're responding to is making, and answer only the questions they are asking. Making assumptions just wastes people's time. I understand you're just trying to help, but it comes across as really condescending. "You should be doing this you pleb!" is how I always read these types of responses in my head, and it's really frustrating because often-times I'm already aware of whatever workaround you've mentioned, have already tried it, and know it's not suitable. It's doubly frustrating when you're specifically looking for the solution that's not the workaround.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    There's no need to be like that. > Is there some reason programmers feel this need to bring up workarounds when I'm looking for an actual solution? It is a solution! It's not the same solution you want, but it's an actual solution to the problem you described. > Address the point the person you're responding to is making, and answer only the questions they are asking. They are addressing the point, and " answer only the questions they are asking." is a dreadful idea to me. So often people are asking how to solve a problem in a specific way, but there's no good reason to be limiting themselves in that way. Given that they currently can't easily solve their problem in that specific way, it suggests that if there is a nice solution they are likely looking in the wrong place. > Making assumptions just wastes people's time. I feel like not sharing a solution because you think that the person you're trying to help has some unexpected extra > is how I always read these types of responses in my head, and it's really frustrating because often-times I'm already aware of whatever workaround you've mentioned, have already tried it, and know it's not suitable. It's doubly frustrating when you're specifically looking for the solution that's not the workaround. Then you should make it more explicit what you've already tried. We're not inside your head, and many people haven't tried these things before. This is a good guide: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html I didn't realise lambda@edge was a thing, or that I could use it to solve these problems. If I'd asked the question, these would have helped me. Why should someone refrain from writing a concise and polite response helping me purely because they think I may have tried that before and it will annoy me? > "You should be doing this you pleb!" is how I always read these types of responses in my head, Then you may benefit from trying to work on this. Their reply has none of this snark or rudeness at all, and is simply listing some ways of solving the problem. You are the one that added this mentally, and then it annoys you. You are adding something yourself which then annoys you. Go back and read what they said. They very simply explained that AWS let you do those things using lambda@edge. There was absolutely no reason to reply so rudely.
    - mseebach 9y ago
      So, I totally agree with you on the tone of the GP, and that workarounds are worthwhile to share, but I feel like they have a point. I feel the problem is more pronounced in the Javascript/webdev community (caveat: I'm recently dabbling in web front end development after a good number of years in Java-land) - the willingness to throw a poorly understood workaround or npm-incantation out there ("it usually works if I.."), rather than trying to actually get at the root of the problem is frustrating. I don't just want to make it work, I want to understand why it didn't before. It seems, from still shallow observation, that the community (such as a singular community exists) has an ethos of doing whatever to make it work and moving on. Sometimes the root of the issue is a fundamental limitation that you need to work around, and workarounds are definitely useful in those cases, but they are definitely frustrating when they aren't accompanied by reasonably precise diagnosis of the problem they are working around.
aaronbrethorst 9y ago
You're more likely to get a big promotion for creating a bold new v1.0 than refining and polishing v3.5. This seems to be a big problem with Google, too. Out of whack incentivization at work, I suppose. I wish more companies rewarded employees based upon NPS or some similar metric. I think that would address your complaint in fairly short order.
- theDoug 9y ago
  If you have examples for the Google side, I'd legitimately love to hear 'em (email dollars@ if the list is too long for character limit). This has been far from my experience internally and what we're trying to share with users, but that doesn't mean we can't also improve.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    How many chat apps and platforms has Google launched over the past 10 years? I can't even keep track of them anymore. Here are six'ish: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-chat-video-apps-differences-explained/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-chat-video-apps-... Edit: I don't have any complaints about GCP. I think you folks have done a great job of clearly positioning and segmenting your product lines. Props to you for that.
  - bmurphy1976 9y ago
    Tell me again which Android chat app I am supposed to use? Oh I guess it's that new one that barely works that replaced the less new one that barely works that replaced the old one that barely works. Or maybe it's that other new one Google just released...
hobofan 9y ago
And if they decide to bring out a new service they could for once continue building on one of the 10 existing different UI design languages instead of introducing yet another "sporty user interface".
azinman2 9y ago
Just curious — why do you want lower bar security? If you didn’t care about security, then don’t sign the S3 request (make it public). If you want it signed, then why is expiration an issue?
- rtpg 9y ago
  It's a spectrum right? Having a signed S3 request is slightly better than having a public link.
  - JimDabell 9y ago
    For all intents and purposes, a signed, non-expiring S3 request is a public link, isn't it? Anybody can access it in perpetuity just by following the link. The only difference is that the signed request is unpredictable and public links are probably predictable by default. So just include a UUID in your key and you are set.
    - azinman2 9y ago
      The public link can be just as unpredictable.
chatmasta 9y ago
And once you make those changes, please update the documentation on your website.

by avip 9y ago

alexbilbie 9y ago

You can implement basic auth using Lambda@Edge. You could also implement your own non-expiring signed URLs with Lambda@Edge too.

avip 9y ago
Yes. I know how to solve all the issues on my list. But I'm paying aws a fortune for them to solve my problems, not for me to find workarounds. /end rant [EDIT: Also, slightly drifting - me solving an aws issue is inefficient in the big scheme of things. We'd have N developers solving the same problem, each to himself. That's a DRY violation. And we can't even estimate the waste, lacking an aws issues/voting system]
spaceseaman 9y ago
rolls eyes Is there some reason programmers feel this need to bring up workarounds when I'm looking for an actual solution? If I could count how many answers on StackOverflow are just "well if you use JQuery..." or "Well if you use Boost...". Address the point the person you're responding to is making, and answer only the questions they are asking. Making assumptions just wastes people's time. I understand you're just trying to help, but it comes across as really condescending. "You should be doing this you pleb!" is how I always read these types of responses in my head, and it's really frustrating because often-times I'm already aware of whatever workaround you've mentioned, have already tried it, and know it's not suitable. It's doubly frustrating when you're specifically looking for the solution that's not the workaround.
- IanCal 9y ago
  There's no need to be like that. > Is there some reason programmers feel this need to bring up workarounds when I'm looking for an actual solution? It is a solution! It's not the same solution you want, but it's an actual solution to the problem you described. > Address the point the person you're responding to is making, and answer only the questions they are asking. They are addressing the point, and " answer only the questions they are asking." is a dreadful idea to me. So often people are asking how to solve a problem in a specific way, but there's no good reason to be limiting themselves in that way. Given that they currently can't easily solve their problem in that specific way, it suggests that if there is a nice solution they are likely looking in the wrong place. > Making assumptions just wastes people's time. I feel like not sharing a solution because you think that the person you're trying to help has some unexpected extra > is how I always read these types of responses in my head, and it's really frustrating because often-times I'm already aware of whatever workaround you've mentioned, have already tried it, and know it's not suitable. It's doubly frustrating when you're specifically looking for the solution that's not the workaround. Then you should make it more explicit what you've already tried. We're not inside your head, and many people haven't tried these things before. This is a good guide: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html I didn't realise lambda@edge was a thing, or that I could use it to solve these problems. If I'd asked the question, these would have helped me. Why should someone refrain from writing a concise and polite response helping me purely because they think I may have tried that before and it will annoy me? > "You should be doing this you pleb!" is how I always read these types of responses in my head, Then you may benefit from trying to work on this. Their reply has none of this snark or rudeness at all, and is simply listing some ways of solving the problem. You are the one that added this mentally, and then it annoys you. You are adding something yourself which then annoys you. Go back and read what they said. They very simply explained that AWS let you do those things using lambda@edge. There was absolutely no reason to reply so rudely.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    So, I totally agree with you on the tone of the GP, and that workarounds are worthwhile to share, but I feel like they have a point. I feel the problem is more pronounced in the Javascript/webdev community (caveat: I'm recently dabbling in web front end development after a good number of years in Java-land) - the willingness to throw a poorly understood workaround or npm-incantation out there ("it usually works if I.."), rather than trying to actually get at the root of the problem is frustrating. I don't just want to make it work, I want to understand why it didn't before. It seems, from still shallow observation, that the community (such as a singular community exists) has an ethos of doing whatever to make it work and moving on. Sometimes the root of the issue is a fundamental limitation that you need to work around, and workarounds are definitely useful in those cases, but they are definitely frustrating when they aren't accompanied by reasonably precise diagnosis of the problem they are working around.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago

You're more likely to get a big promotion for creating a bold new v1.0 than refining and polishing v3.5. This seems to be a big problem with Google, too. Out of whack incentivization at work, I suppose. I wish more companies rewarded employees based upon NPS or some similar metric. I think that would address your complaint in fairly short order.

theDoug 9y ago
If you have examples for the Google side, I'd legitimately love to hear 'em (email dollars@ if the list is too long for character limit). This has been far from my experience internally and what we're trying to share with users, but that doesn't mean we can't also improve.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  How many chat apps and platforms has Google launched over the past 10 years? I can't even keep track of them anymore. Here are six'ish: https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-chat-video-apps-differences-explained/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-chat-video-apps-... Edit: I don't have any complaints about GCP. I think you folks have done a great job of clearly positioning and segmenting your product lines. Props to you for that.
- bmurphy1976 9y ago
  Tell me again which Android chat app I am supposed to use? Oh I guess it's that new one that barely works that replaced the less new one that barely works that replaced the old one that barely works. Or maybe it's that other new one Google just released...

hobofan 9y ago

And if they decide to bring out a new service they could for once continue building on one of the 10 existing different UI design languages instead of introducing yet another "sporty user interface".

azinman2 9y ago

Just curious — why do you want lower bar security? If you didn’t care about security, then don’t sign the S3 request (make it public). If you want it signed, then why is expiration an issue?

rtpg 9y ago
It's a spectrum right? Having a signed S3 request is slightly better than having a public link.
- JimDabell 9y ago
  For all intents and purposes, a signed, non-expiring S3 request is a public link, isn't it? Anybody can access it in perpetuity just by following the link. The only difference is that the signed request is unpredictable and public links are probably predictable by default. So just include a UUID in your key and you are set.
  - azinman2 9y ago
    The public link can be just as unpredictable.

chatmasta 9y ago

And once you make those changes, please update the documentation on your website.