4 ms·
It's massively inefficient, but it's also still massively safe in comparison, regarding soveignerity. Like, today, given the political uncertainty in the USA,
by Juliate 6y ago
It's massively inefficient, but it's also still massively safe in comparison, regarding soveignerity.
Like, today, given the political uncertainty in the USA, any large company would be nuts to bet on hosting their critical services on US-dependant infrastructure without having a huge plan B already in the works.
- ehnto 6y agoIs there a serverless provider with a "self hosted node" option that could be used as a fallback? That pretty much defeats the purpose of serverless, but at least you could hang on while figuring out how to transition to a new solution if the provider fails. That has always been my sticking point. With AWS in particular. I don't trust AWS to exist forever, and it's definitely not without it own ongoing maintenance issues. Locking my entire business into their ecosystem seems risky at best. Something I see really often in startups is huge dependencies in the form of SaaS. It should be no secret to those in tech that many of these businesses will not be around in 3 years. Even the likelihood of their service staying the same for 3 years is pretty low. I have been bitten by enough deprecated services, APIs and Incredible Journeys that I am wary.