4 ms·

Personally, I'm moving more and more away from anything AWS. Too many foot guns and its just not worth it.

by zo1 4y ago

game_the0ry 4y ago
I found migrating to AWS serverless and managed services to not be so bad - that approach has some merit, especially when it comes to minimizing admin overhead. Could you elaborate on your experience?
- ignoramous 4y ago
  OP said "personally", and I feel what they mean is, for an individual developer or a small tech shop, AWS makes for a less enticing proposition. I concur. As for me, several reasons: 1. Novelty: It is no longer cool, shiny, hip. 2. Paradox of choice: Just too many things. Though, I prefer AWS Lightsail and do use its services. 3. DevEx: Prefer easier tooling and simpler billing. 4. Realisation: Boring tech works: https://archive.is/sXPN9 https://archive.is/sXPN9 (https://twitter.com/jeanqasaur/status/1455589141299675139 https://twitter.com/jeanqasaur/status/1455589141299675139)
  - ldoughty 4y ago
    I really think it comes down to what you already know, and what you want to do. Sure, I can run my personal website on a Pi, but then I have to do the hoops to try and serve it off port 80/443 since my ISP blocks it. I could spend an extra $100/month for business class, but why do that if I can get a $5 VM on lightsail that can host half a dozen small WordPress sites and a DB.. And I know S3 and CloudFront, so I can cut the costs lower and serve the static page for pennies... I'd pay AWS $0.10/month to avoid the hassles of my ISP and Dynamic DNS..
    - PaywallBuster 4y ago
      plot twist: Static website hosted in Netlify, Github/Gitlab pages or Cloudflare. No point using AWS - 1000 pound gorilla with dozens of services and features PLUS _unbounded_ billing - if you have only a basic use case such as static page
      - messe 4y ago
        > PLUS _unbounded_ billing Disclaimer: I work at AWS, but not involved in billing. The below is my personal experience having dealt with AWS outside of my current role there. I agree its not worth it if you're just hosting a static page, but if you're using it for other development it can be worthwhile. (I have to admit that Cloudflare/R2 is looking promising for static hosting, although workers seem a bit more limited than lambda. Definitely an interesting ecosystem to keep an eye on) Even thought it has unbounded billing, in the case of mistakes or unexpected surges, they're often willing to assist and even nix charges. Ultimately, they'd rather you continue using the service and pay future bills than have you quit while they try to collect on a bill you can't pay. On my personal account, I have billing alerts configured low, and its billed via SEPA from a separate bank account that I use just for cloud providers (N26 makes it easy to configure a separate account with a distinct IBAN). In the unlikely event goes over the amount I have in that account, it'll fail to charge me and I can look into disputing the charges.
        PaywallBuster 4y ago
        I'm sure billing is not a problem 99% of times but if aws support decides not to help, or won't clear as much as expected you'd have a credit to AWS which they could possibly try to collect by other means besides direct debit, such as debt collection
  - willsmith72 4y ago
    Aren't #1 and #4 at odds? I like that these days it's not cool and hip, which means kind of akin to something like Spring Boot, everything's been done before and there's way less custom fiddling. The paradox of choice doesn't apply here, you don't have to choose between every service offered. You can pick the one or few that work for you and reuse, reuse, reuse. I find it great for small operations; free tiers for really tiny projects, and the choice of managed services for a higher fee but way less maintenance - especially handy for small businesses who don't have the people to be worrying about architecture every day.
    - ignoramous 4y ago
      > Aren't #1 and #4 at odds? They are at odds (but I allow myself to use a few shiny, new things that I like [0]), but they are also part of the reason I don't use AWS. > The paradox of choice doesn't apply here, you don't have to choose between every service offered. Well: https://nitter.net/QuinnyPig/status/1504118950019284995 https://nitter.net/QuinnyPig/status/1504118950019284995 [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215
francis-io 4y ago
Yea, as I get better educated and more experienced at my job, I'm thinking more and more that the lessons of the past 5-10 years are less "serverless is the future" an more "the real gains are things like immutability for deployments and reproducibility". As a general rule, I try to reduce as many "moving parts" as possible.
fibonacc 4y ago
You don't really need AWS for personal weekend type of projects or small startups but for large companies, they seem to be accelerating their dependence on AWS and its not a bad thing imho, it means a standard is emerging and companies are voting with their money. kubernetes on the other hand....think will be replaced by fargate/ecs, I still struggle to know why startups with a dozen container services need kubernetes. Not having opinionated standard creates so much complexity with endless amount of configurations.
- cheriot 4y ago
  AWS: proprietary APIs implemented by one vendor K8S: many vendors collaborating on a API they all implement I'd call kubernetes the emerging standard.
- gfarah 4y ago
  Companies (even small startups) working in regulated spaces can benefit from using the public cloud for the compliance aspect. More than once I've had a regulator ask me for X or Y security certifications, very easy to point to the list that ECS has, much harder to do if running on IaaS or in bare metal.
  - fibonacc 4y ago
    exactly, yes you have to pay the piper but there are real contractual liability shift away from the operator by going with aws

Personally, I'm moving more and more away from anything AWS. Too many foot guns and its just not worth it.

by zo1 4y ago

Personally, I'm moving more and more away from anything AWS. Too many foot guns and its just not worth it.

I found migrating to AWS serverless and managed services to not be so bad - that approach has some merit, especially when it comes to minimizing admin overhead. Could you elaborate on your experience?

ignoramous 4y ago
OP said "personally", and I feel what they mean is, for an individual developer or a small tech shop, AWS makes for a less enticing proposition. I concur. As for me, several reasons: 1. Novelty: It is no longer cool, shiny, hip. 2. Paradox of choice: Just too many things. Though, I prefer AWS Lightsail and do use its services. 3. DevEx: Prefer easier tooling and simpler billing. 4. Realisation: Boring tech works: https://archive.is/sXPN9 https://archive.is/sXPN9 (https://twitter.com/jeanqasaur/status/1455589141299675139 https://twitter.com/jeanqasaur/status/1455589141299675139)
- ldoughty 4y ago
  I really think it comes down to what you already know, and what you want to do. Sure, I can run my personal website on a Pi, but then I have to do the hoops to try and serve it off port 80/443 since my ISP blocks it. I could spend an extra $100/month for business class, but why do that if I can get a $5 VM on lightsail that can host half a dozen small WordPress sites and a DB.. And I know S3 and CloudFront, so I can cut the costs lower and serve the static page for pennies... I'd pay AWS $0.10/month to avoid the hassles of my ISP and Dynamic DNS..
  - PaywallBuster 4y ago
    plot twist: Static website hosted in Netlify, Github/Gitlab pages or Cloudflare. No point using AWS - 1000 pound gorilla with dozens of services and features PLUS _unbounded_ billing - if you have only a basic use case such as static page
    - messe 4y ago
      > PLUS _unbounded_ billing Disclaimer: I work at AWS, but not involved in billing. The below is my personal experience having dealt with AWS outside of my current role there. I agree its not worth it if you're just hosting a static page, but if you're using it for other development it can be worthwhile. (I have to admit that Cloudflare/R2 is looking promising for static hosting, although workers seem a bit more limited than lambda. Definitely an interesting ecosystem to keep an eye on) Even thought it has unbounded billing, in the case of mistakes or unexpected surges, they're often willing to assist and even nix charges. Ultimately, they'd rather you continue using the service and pay future bills than have you quit while they try to collect on a bill you can't pay. On my personal account, I have billing alerts configured low, and its billed via SEPA from a separate bank account that I use just for cloud providers (N26 makes it easy to configure a separate account with a distinct IBAN). In the unlikely event goes over the amount I have in that account, it'll fail to charge me and I can look into disputing the charges.
      - PaywallBuster 4y ago
        I'm sure billing is not a problem 99% of times but if aws support decides not to help, or won't clear as much as expected you'd have a credit to AWS which they could possibly try to collect by other means besides direct debit, such as debt collection
- willsmith72 4y ago
  Aren't #1 and #4 at odds? I like that these days it's not cool and hip, which means kind of akin to something like Spring Boot, everything's been done before and there's way less custom fiddling. The paradox of choice doesn't apply here, you don't have to choose between every service offered. You can pick the one or few that work for you and reuse, reuse, reuse. I find it great for small operations; free tiers for really tiny projects, and the choice of managed services for a higher fee but way less maintenance - especially handy for small businesses who don't have the people to be worrying about architecture every day.
  - ignoramous 4y ago
    > Aren't #1 and #4 at odds? They are at odds (but I allow myself to use a few shiny, new things that I like [0]), but they are also part of the reason I don't use AWS. > The paradox of choice doesn't apply here, you don't have to choose between every service offered. Well: https://nitter.net/QuinnyPig/status/1504118950019284995 https://nitter.net/QuinnyPig/status/1504118950019284995 [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215

francis-io 4y ago

Yea, as I get better educated and more experienced at my job, I'm thinking more and more that the lessons of the past 5-10 years are less "serverless is the future" an more "the real gains are things like immutability for deployments and reproducibility". As a general rule, I try to reduce as many "moving parts" as possible.

fibonacc 4y ago

You don't really need AWS for personal weekend type of projects or small startups but for large companies, they seem to be accelerating their dependence on AWS and its not a bad thing imho, it means a standard is emerging and companies are voting with their money. kubernetes on the other hand....think will be replaced by fargate/ecs, I still struggle to know why startups with a dozen container services need kubernetes. Not having opinionated standard creates so much complexity with endless amount of configurations.

cheriot 4y ago
AWS: proprietary APIs implemented by one vendor K8S: many vendors collaborating on a API they all implement I'd call kubernetes the emerging standard.
gfarah 4y ago
Companies (even small startups) working in regulated spaces can benefit from using the public cloud for the compliance aspect. More than once I've had a regulator ask me for X or Y security certifications, very easy to point to the list that ECS has, much harder to do if running on IaaS or in bare metal.
- fibonacc 4y ago
  exactly, yes you have to pay the piper but there are real contractual liability shift away from the operator by going with aws