4 ms·
> To me it is antithetical to building a sustainable product. Continuing what you said, Google uses macOS and Windows for client machines. That is ok because i
by pooper 4y ago
> To me it is antithetical to building a sustainable product.
Continuing what you said, Google uses macOS and Windows for client machines. That is ok because if Apple or Microsoft were to decide to cut off Google altogether, Google would have bigger problems.
However, I think from a business point of view, this is similar to how so many businesses use cloudinary. Cloudinary is a software as a service company that provides cloud based image and video management services. What if cloudinary kicks you out? There is a lot of custom code out there to interface with cloudinary API. Where do we draw the line between using Cloudinary is ok but Amazon aws lambda is not?
- macinjosh 4y agoI can't find the quote, but I think it was Joel Spolsky on an old stackoverflow podcast with Jeff Atwood. They were discussing why stackoverflow built their own servers and did not use cloud or other hosting. He said something like companies should fully own and control their product and any direct dependencies thereof. If you think of it as a concentric set of rings you at least want to have full control over your ring and the ring below it. In the terms of a web app it meant the code for your application and the hardware it runs on. To me that seems reasonable.
- RussianCow 4y agoThat doesn't sound reasonable at all to me. Unless you are building your own cloud service or doing something out of the ordinary (for which cloud wouldn't be a good fit anyway), the hardware you run on has absolutely nothing to do with your business. Take the shortest/cheapest path and move on. To be fair to the Stack Overflow guys, AWS had fewer offerings when SO was built, so the comparison wasn't the same then as it is now.