4 ms·

replace AWS with <cloud provider> and every bullet point is still True. Every website (the Internet) needs to be hosted. If not on a cloud provider, you are go

replace AWS with <cloud provider> and every bullet point is still True. Every website (the Internet) needs to be hosted. If not on a cloud provider, you are going to have to host it yourself, which is a ton of more work and more points of failure. For cloud providers, point of failure occurs if you don't pay them. When you are hosting yourself, there are tons of points of failure (electricity, maintenance, etc.)

chmod775 5y ago
> replace AWS with <cloud provider> and every bullet point is still True. No they're not. AWS is pretty much the most expensive, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more - especially for egress traffic. > For cloud providers, point of failure occurs if you don't pay them. "It's in the cloud" doesn't mean you don't have to think about reliability, redundancy, and backups. AWS, GCP etc all had outages. All points of failure are exactly the same vs. buying bare-metal. In the case of "the cloud" they're just partly managed by other people. But yes, as I said, there are choices with trade-offs. Overall I'm unsure what you're trying to tell me with your comment. Is your argument that not choosing the cloud isn't really an option? I have not chosen AWS for a decade and saved a seven figure sum in the process (just for my private projects - 500TB monthly egress alone already would be expensive).
colechristensen 5y ago
It’s not really all that much more work. More like people who don’t know how to cook talking about how unreasonable making dinner instead of ordering it would be. Honestly the biggest benefit about the cloud is actually just hiding the details of how much things cost so that management can’t pinch pennies when it comes to the fine grained cost of operating tech and doesn’t have to spend the time making reports about it. There are plenty of hosting options out there that just provide you with bare metal hardware and take care of the lower level maintenance.

chmod775 5y ago

> replace AWS with <cloud provider> and every bullet point is still True. No they're not. AWS is pretty much the most expensive, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more - especially for egress traffic. > For cloud providers, point of failure occurs if you don't pay them. "It's in the cloud" doesn't mean you don't have to think about reliability, redundancy, and backups. AWS, GCP etc all had outages. All points of failure are exactly the same vs. buying bare-metal. In the case of "the cloud" they're just partly managed by other people. But yes, as I said, there are choices with trade-offs. Overall I'm unsure what you're trying to tell me with your comment. Is your argument that not choosing the cloud isn't really an option? I have not chosen AWS for a decade and saved a seven figure sum in the process (just for my private projects - 500TB monthly egress alone already would be expensive).

colechristensen 5y ago

It’s not really all that much more work. More like people who don’t know how to cook talking about how unreasonable making dinner instead of ordering it would be. Honestly the biggest benefit about the cloud is actually just hiding the details of how much things cost so that management can’t pinch pennies when it comes to the fine grained cost of operating tech and doesn’t have to spend the time making reports about it. There are plenty of hosting options out there that just provide you with bare metal hardware and take care of the lower level maintenance.