4 ms·

Inaccurate analogy. Container based compute is a very small part of the AWS ecosystem. You are missing the bigger picture. Companies are migrating to AWS for en

Inaccurate analogy. Container based compute is a very small part of the AWS ecosystem. You are missing the bigger picture. Companies are migrating to AWS for end to end managed infrastructure including directory services, databases (sql and non sql), managed ETL pipeline infrastructure, batch processes, backups, data processing and analytics at scale, high durability storage at scale, a host of mobile app services, even satellite ground station infrastructure of late. This list is a subset. And all this comes with compliance and security out of the box on the infrastructure side, and a very low support overhead on the IT side compared to if you did it yourself. And finally these are not isolated services. They can be used as building blocks or layers. For example your aws lambda compute might be triggered by s3 events.

guiriduro 8y ago
My thoughts exactly. Insofar as Kubernetes provides one abstraction (for container orchestration) it reduces lock-in and provides standardisation for just a small part of the IT landscape, and even then there are alternatives that may be more appropriate depending on the use-case (Heroku, Docker swarm mode, ECS, Fargate, serverless).
rakoo 8y ago
I think you're actually agreeing even more with the author. Windows has everything you need for most of the usages you would have, all of it is integrated and the out of the box experience is functional. Linux at the time was a big mess of different softwares with different guarantees of working, maintained by duct-tape bash scripts and custom configuration files. If you wanted something, you had to work to have it.
- acdha 8y ago
  This was only true for end-user desktops. For technical work and servers, Windows had a few built-in things and a ton of things which could, with significant work, be installed — nothing like a simple apt-get install for years, which is why so many places switched rather than paying people to spend hours clicking through installers and then troubleshooting why it failed.
- aiisjustanif 8y ago
  What did Windows server have for you out of the box vs a CentOS box?

guiriduro 8y ago

My thoughts exactly. Insofar as Kubernetes provides one abstraction (for container orchestration) it reduces lock-in and provides standardisation for just a small part of the IT landscape, and even then there are alternatives that may be more appropriate depending on the use-case (Heroku, Docker swarm mode, ECS, Fargate, serverless).

rakoo 8y ago

I think you're actually agreeing even more with the author. Windows has everything you need for most of the usages you would have, all of it is integrated and the out of the box experience is functional. Linux at the time was a big mess of different softwares with different guarantees of working, maintained by duct-tape bash scripts and custom configuration files. If you wanted something, you had to work to have it.

acdha 8y ago
This was only true for end-user desktops. For technical work and servers, Windows had a few built-in things and a ton of things which could, with significant work, be installed — nothing like a simple apt-get install for years, which is why so many places switched rather than paying people to spend hours clicking through installers and then troubleshooting why it failed.
aiisjustanif 8y ago
What did Windows server have for you out of the box vs a CentOS box?