3 ms·
You fell for the classic corporate excuse ;) Vendors are not suppressing self hosting due to technical overhead. In fact, you shrink both your operational expe
by lopkeny12ko 4y ago
You fell for the classic corporate excuse ;)
Vendors are not suppressing self hosting due to technical overhead. In fact, you shrink both your operational expenses and technical overhead by delegating to your customers entirely running, securing, and operating your software.
Vendors are suppressing self hosting because it's not a revenue generation stream, and to peddle back FOSS commitments. Customers are required to pay for a cloud-hosted version, while self hosted is free. And while they're at it, why continue to support open source once you cripple the self hosted version and only support the opaque cloud version?
This same playbook has been executed time and time again. Elastic comes to mind as a prominent example.
- LinuxBender 4y agoYou fell for the classic corporate excuse ;) That's why I said I don't like my own answer. I know its conditionally half true and I have always preferred to host things myself. I can put the right security controls in place and I can coordinate patch management to not conflict with customer code patch management. I am also a bit jaded after dealing with three-letter-agency funded hardware that must have a cloud connection to perform big data analysis on logs and totally not to have that back door connection into the datacenter and psychologically condition the network team into expected to see hundreds of GB of data flow to a cloud provider. But I tried as best I could to keep that out of my answer.
- em-bee 4y agothe kind of experienced user like you is not the one causing to many support issues. the difficulty is knowing which users are, and being able to charge them appropriately