5 ms·

Good. I would like to hope this shows companies that they should always host in-house; rather than using cloud services if their product is to be going to be i

Good. I would like to hope this shows companies that they should always host in-house; rather than using cloud services if their product is to be going to be internet enabled. If it can run on AWS, it can run on a baremetal server.

oliwarner 6y ago
You're just shifting the problem. Now each customer is beholden to the cleaner not accidentally unplugging the server, grid power and network issues. Vacuum cleaners that don't require public network access is the solution.
- doublerabbit 6y ago
  Very true. Where this internet necessity came form, I do not know.
reificator 6y ago
> I really hope this shows companies that they should... Yes! Exactly! > ...always host in-house rather than using some-sort of cloud service for operations of their consumer product. What? Excuse me but what? You were so close before you swerved away from the right answer. I hope this shows companies that your vacuum cleaner should not require an internet connection. This is absurd.
- doublerabbit 6y ago
  Good point, long day and my cynicalism of wanting to see the world burn has kicked in. I should rephrase it as "That if the product is going to be internet enabled, servers should be in-house."
  - corobo 6y ago
    Isn't in house way more likely to go offline? When AWS goes dark it's news. When some company's server room goes offline some IT tech gets a pizza paid for by the company and a bit of a late night
    - joana035 6y ago
      This is FUD, full control to handle the situation, to the extent of your knowledge is awesome. When AWS goes dark, pray and go grab a coffee, there is nothing you can do. Keep pressing refresh on aws status page.
      - reificator 6y ago
        It's not FUD just because you don't agree with it. Having control is great when someone's breathing down your neck, but for a lot of organizations you'll not have people breathing down your neck as often on AWS. (At least in terms of the service itself, bad code and bad deploys are still a thing) It's different tradeoffs and the vast majority of shops are not set up to compete with AWS in terms of uptime. I'm not an AWS apologist by any means and in fact I've been moving services off AWS over the last few years, but I can't abide your claims of FUD.
      - corobo 6y ago
        I promise you I can do much better than that if I'm trying to spread FUD mate, come off it Experience. The pizza thing is a thing I used to do (far too frequently) lmao
abrookewood 6y ago
I don't think you can draw that conclusion. Hosting in house has it's own issues and problems. I'd argue it's much easier to maintain a high degree of uptime with outsourced hosting and I've done both.
- doublerabbit 6y ago
  I would disagree on the basis of my own experiences. I have my own colocated servers with clients. The "cloud" (which lets face is just a buzz word for servers in a datacentre) is a convoluted maze. You can take so many paths but they all end up to the same dead end. However pushing my cynicism aside, I would be happy wager it would be far cheaper, efficient and more cost-effective to run in-house then it would be to use the cloud. I have 4u colocation, 2u in two different datacentres. It's overkill. I host eight servers. I don't need it, but I will always be a preacher of colocation for the fact of that nothing in the world feels better then running your own code, on your own hardware on your own infrastructure on your own spec of internet dust. It's like making your own loaf of bread for the first time. That's not to say there are not reasons on why you should use the cloud but in this scenario if your corporate with consumers it should always be your own kit, because how else do you provide a quality service?
  - joana035 6y ago
    It just drives me nuts to know that with the same price you can get a 12CPU+128GB of memory on Hetzner, on AWS you get 4CPU+8GB memory. I will not even mention the bandwidth costs :)
tartoran 6y ago
It's attractive for a lot of companies to have users tied somehow to the cloud. Think about all the data that could be mined or think of it in a different way, they're with a foot in your house. That's a lot of potential for them. We should fight back and 1) own our devices 2) own the data 3) if we decide to put things in cloud we should be able be interchangeably swap the cloud provider

oliwarner 6y ago

You're just shifting the problem. Now each customer is beholden to the cleaner not accidentally unplugging the server, grid power and network issues. Vacuum cleaners that don't require public network access is the solution.

doublerabbit 6y ago
Very true. Where this internet necessity came form, I do not know.

reificator 6y ago

> I really hope this shows companies that they should... Yes! Exactly! > ...always host in-house rather than using some-sort of cloud service for operations of their consumer product. What? Excuse me but what? You were so close before you swerved away from the right answer. I hope this shows companies that your vacuum cleaner should not require an internet connection. This is absurd.

doublerabbit 6y ago
Good point, long day and my cynicalism of wanting to see the world burn has kicked in. I should rephrase it as "That if the product is going to be internet enabled, servers should be in-house."
- corobo 6y ago
  Isn't in house way more likely to go offline? When AWS goes dark it's news. When some company's server room goes offline some IT tech gets a pizza paid for by the company and a bit of a late night
  - joana035 6y ago
    This is FUD, full control to handle the situation, to the extent of your knowledge is awesome. When AWS goes dark, pray and go grab a coffee, there is nothing you can do. Keep pressing refresh on aws status page.
    - reificator 6y ago
      It's not FUD just because you don't agree with it. Having control is great when someone's breathing down your neck, but for a lot of organizations you'll not have people breathing down your neck as often on AWS. (At least in terms of the service itself, bad code and bad deploys are still a thing) It's different tradeoffs and the vast majority of shops are not set up to compete with AWS in terms of uptime. I'm not an AWS apologist by any means and in fact I've been moving services off AWS over the last few years, but I can't abide your claims of FUD.
    - corobo 6y ago
      I promise you I can do much better than that if I'm trying to spread FUD mate, come off it Experience. The pizza thing is a thing I used to do (far too frequently) lmao

abrookewood 6y ago

I don't think you can draw that conclusion. Hosting in house has it's own issues and problems. I'd argue it's much easier to maintain a high degree of uptime with outsourced hosting and I've done both.

doublerabbit 6y ago
I would disagree on the basis of my own experiences. I have my own colocated servers with clients. The "cloud" (which lets face is just a buzz word for servers in a datacentre) is a convoluted maze. You can take so many paths but they all end up to the same dead end. However pushing my cynicism aside, I would be happy wager it would be far cheaper, efficient and more cost-effective to run in-house then it would be to use the cloud. I have 4u colocation, 2u in two different datacentres. It's overkill. I host eight servers. I don't need it, but I will always be a preacher of colocation for the fact of that nothing in the world feels better then running your own code, on your own hardware on your own infrastructure on your own spec of internet dust. It's like making your own loaf of bread for the first time. That's not to say there are not reasons on why you should use the cloud but in this scenario if your corporate with consumers it should always be your own kit, because how else do you provide a quality service?
- joana035 6y ago
  It just drives me nuts to know that with the same price you can get a 12CPU+128GB of memory on Hetzner, on AWS you get 4CPU+8GB memory. I will not even mention the bandwidth costs :)

tartoran 6y ago

It's attractive for a lot of companies to have users tied somehow to the cloud. Think about all the data that could be mined or think of it in a different way, they're with a foot in your house. That's a lot of potential for them. We should fight back and 1) own our devices 2) own the data 3) if we decide to put things in cloud we should be able be interchangeably swap the cloud provider