> is serverless something that only makes sense at a certain scale? Other way around. With enough scale you should be able to make hosting your own datacente

> is serverless something that only makes sense at a certain scale? Other way around. With enough scale you should be able to make hosting your own datacenter work. The problem is that the people you hire tend to go off buying too much Enterprise-class shit and Empire building and the whole thing winds up costing 10 times as much as it should because they want stuff to play with to resume stuff and to share risk with the vendor and have them to blame. Only thing Amazon did to build out their internal IT ops exceptionally cheaply and eventually sell it as the AWS cloud service was to focus on "frugality" and fire anyone who said expensive words like "SAN". And they were ordered in no uncertain terms to get out of the way of software development and weren't allowed to block changes the way that ITIL and CRBs used to. I didn't realize how difficult that would be to replicate anywhere else and foolishly sold all my AMZN stock options thinking that AWS would quickly get out competed by everyone being able to replicate it by just focusing on cheap horizontal scalability. These days there is some more inherent stickiness to it all since at small scales you can be geographically replicated fairly easily (although lots of people still run in a single region / single AZ -- which indicates that a lot of businesses can tolerate outages so that level of complexity or cost isn't necessary -- but in any head-to-head comparison the "but what if we got our shit together and got geographically distributed?" objection would be raised).