16 ms·
There's a lot of revisionist history around what AWS allowed. RackShack and other companies offered pretty cheap (started at $99/month IIRC) dedicated Linux se
by martinald 6y ago
There's a lot of revisionist history around what AWS allowed.
RackShack and other companies offered pretty cheap (started at $99/month IIRC) dedicated Linux servers which loads of startups used before AWS. There was also various virtual machine providers in the market.
These articles make it sound like every company before AWS had to build their own datacenter or at least buy a million dollars worth of Sun hardware to put a website online.
- kazen44 6y agoHeck, old colleagues of mine have been doing "dedicated/shared hosting" for the better part of nearly 25 years. virtual private servers have existed for 20 decades+.
- vasco 6y agoI think 20 decades might be a bit of an exaggeration.
- breck 6y agoNo I actually remember reading a letter Lovelace wrote to Babbage about problems with chroot
- Misteur-Z 6y agoIBM mainframes virtual machines saying hello => "It is directly based on technology and concepts dating back to the 1960s" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z/VM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z/VM
- krallja 6y ago20 decades ago would be 1821 A.D., four decades before the First American Civil War.
- throwaway20148 6y agoThat’s what the CIA would have you believe.
- kazen44 6y agoofcourse you are right, i meant 2 decades :)
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoThe biggest thing that AWS offered in the beginning was extreme proximity to the backbone. Their services have grown by the dozens, and other hosting services have followed suit, but they remain (as far as I know) one of the closest points [ EDIT: without co-location ] you can put a VM to the backbone.
- martinald 6y agoI don't know what you mean by backbone? Loads of providers offered/offer multiple redundant tier 1 fibre connections.