3 ms·

I guess the point is then: once you’re migrated over, you live happily. For a while. The next migration will come. It’s only a question of when. What then? You’

I guess the point is then: once you’re migrated over, you live happily. For a while. The next migration will come. It’s only a question of when. What then? You’re now so far removed from simple Unix-like principles, tools and platforms that migration will be harder by an order of magnitude (and you noted how much work it is!).

scarface_74 3y ago
And what about the 250 other SaaS services that your company uses? Are you going to suggest that your medical software doesn’t integrate with third party EMH/EMR systems? That your call center and sales team doesn’t integrate with Salesforce? What about your dependency on Workday? ServiceNow? Your project management software? All of the Microsoft software? Yes even VMWare. There is a reason that AWS has a VMWare offering.
garganzol 3y ago
> You’re now so far removed from simple Unix-like principles, tools and platforms that migration will be harder by an order of magnitude Exactly my experience. Some services I manage are still entrenched in Big Co. Cloud, and it's a hell. This lock-in costs us additional money (thousands per year), but that amount is less than it would cost us to migrate those apps immediately. Unix is cool not because it's a Unix, but because it's simple, aka Unix Philosophy.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  “Thousands of dollars a year” is probably a rounding error in your organization
noirscape 3y ago
It does depend on the managed services you're using. Most SaaS companies do offer the "conventional" services managed; if all you need is a database, a cache and some sort of place to dump a docker container for your backend/frontend and not deal with the wires of manually setting up, connecting and securing all of it against the outside world, their offer makes sense. (And like... this describes the majority of internet tech stacks). The hairy stuff is when you get into the highly specific offerings for each SaaS platform. They all offer a ton of them and they can certainly be attractive for some cases (ie. Filehosting) or useless in others (there's a lot of stuff that amounts to "our version of cache/database" and little else) but that's where the lock-in issues tend to play up. GCP is uniquely terrible though from what I've heard in terms of support lifespan and utter unhelpfulness in terms of communicating to their customers when some SaaS offering of theirs are on the chopping block.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Have you seen or been involved with overseeing the architecture of a large enterprise or state government? There is such a morass of built up complexity it takes years to complete a migration and many just give up and install a direct connect to their cloud provider and claim they always meant to be hybrid.
  - noirscape 3y ago
    I've seen the (broad) architecture of my local government yes (due to keeping tabs on government spending on IT as a personal curiosity). I'm aware of the morass you speak off. The reality though is that most tech stacks aren't that complicated. Not every company is a venture capital "go big or go bust, we change the entire industry" darling (nor are they necessarily looking to grow that way, especially outside the SV bubble) or a government with 2000 different contracts and enough yellow tape + bureaucracy around those contracts that signing a new contract is just easier than possibly extending an existing one with new features. For the rest of those tech stacks (which are definitely "enterprise", simply by definition, since they get used in companies and are bespoke enough to be their own tools), it's rare to see a stack more complex than the one I mentioned (backend, cache, db) unless a technical admin decided to play runaway with Azure/Google/Amazon because it's shiny and exciting.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      When I say “enterprise”, I’m talking about large F500 companies with lots of moving pieces.
      - noirscape 3y ago
        Yes, in those cases the tradeoffs of lock-in are worth it. With that in mind though - F500 are the absolute peak of the economic market (since you know, that's how Fortune makes that list). They represent less than 1% of the total market in terms of actual needs. In those cases, the vendor lock-in from using a bespoke AWS or Azure solution are absolutely worth it because if AWS or Azure are an active problem they also will have the manpower to migrate off of AWS/Azure. My suggestion/advice is for the other 99%. You still want AWS/Azure for CYA, the managed part (not having to deal with ops) and backups but you don't need all the extra solutions they offer. It's why "you are not Google" is an advice that exists. Newbies often tend to assume that because [big company/VC startup] is willing to eat the potential risk of a lock-in gone awry that the [smaller company] they work for/founded is able to eat it as well. There's definitely a usecase for all the specific services that GCP/Azure/AWS offer. Chances are though that you're not working for a company where that's the case and the more conventional tools will do just fine. (VC Startups tend to ignore that advice mostly because they have a lot of financial resources to spend upfront, so they think it's worthwhile/that they will hit that point where GCP/Azure/AWS services become a necessity compared to a traditional tech stack.)

scarface_74 3y ago

And what about the 250 other SaaS services that your company uses? Are you going to suggest that your medical software doesn’t integrate with third party EMH/EMR systems? That your call center and sales team doesn’t integrate with Salesforce? What about your dependency on Workday? ServiceNow? Your project management software? All of the Microsoft software? Yes even VMWare. There is a reason that AWS has a VMWare offering.

garganzol 3y ago

> You’re now so far removed from simple Unix-like principles, tools and platforms that migration will be harder by an order of magnitude Exactly my experience. Some services I manage are still entrenched in Big Co. Cloud, and it's a hell. This lock-in costs us additional money (thousands per year), but that amount is less than it would cost us to migrate those apps immediately. Unix is cool not because it's a Unix, but because it's simple, aka Unix Philosophy.

scarface_74 3y ago
“Thousands of dollars a year” is probably a rounding error in your organization

noirscape 3y ago

It does depend on the managed services you're using. Most SaaS companies do offer the "conventional" services managed; if all you need is a database, a cache and some sort of place to dump a docker container for your backend/frontend and not deal with the wires of manually setting up, connecting and securing all of it against the outside world, their offer makes sense. (And like... this describes the majority of internet tech stacks). The hairy stuff is when you get into the highly specific offerings for each SaaS platform. They all offer a ton of them and they can certainly be attractive for some cases (ie. Filehosting) or useless in others (there's a lot of stuff that amounts to "our version of cache/database" and little else) but that's where the lock-in issues tend to play up. GCP is uniquely terrible though from what I've heard in terms of support lifespan and utter unhelpfulness in terms of communicating to their customers when some SaaS offering of theirs are on the chopping block.

scarface_74 3y ago
Have you seen or been involved with overseeing the architecture of a large enterprise or state government? There is such a morass of built up complexity it takes years to complete a migration and many just give up and install a direct connect to their cloud provider and claim they always meant to be hybrid.
- noirscape 3y ago
  I've seen the (broad) architecture of my local government yes (due to keeping tabs on government spending on IT as a personal curiosity). I'm aware of the morass you speak off. The reality though is that most tech stacks aren't that complicated. Not every company is a venture capital "go big or go bust, we change the entire industry" darling (nor are they necessarily looking to grow that way, especially outside the SV bubble) or a government with 2000 different contracts and enough yellow tape + bureaucracy around those contracts that signing a new contract is just easier than possibly extending an existing one with new features. For the rest of those tech stacks (which are definitely "enterprise", simply by definition, since they get used in companies and are bespoke enough to be their own tools), it's rare to see a stack more complex than the one I mentioned (backend, cache, db) unless a technical admin decided to play runaway with Azure/Google/Amazon because it's shiny and exciting.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    When I say “enterprise”, I’m talking about large F500 companies with lots of moving pieces.
    - noirscape 3y ago
      Yes, in those cases the tradeoffs of lock-in are worth it. With that in mind though - F500 are the absolute peak of the economic market (since you know, that's how Fortune makes that list). They represent less than 1% of the total market in terms of actual needs. In those cases, the vendor lock-in from using a bespoke AWS or Azure solution are absolutely worth it because if AWS or Azure are an active problem they also will have the manpower to migrate off of AWS/Azure. My suggestion/advice is for the other 99%. You still want AWS/Azure for CYA, the managed part (not having to deal with ops) and backups but you don't need all the extra solutions they offer. It's why "you are not Google" is an advice that exists. Newbies often tend to assume that because [big company/VC startup] is willing to eat the potential risk of a lock-in gone awry that the [smaller company] they work for/founded is able to eat it as well. There's definitely a usecase for all the specific services that GCP/Azure/AWS offer. Chances are though that you're not working for a company where that's the case and the more conventional tools will do just fine. (VC Startups tend to ignore that advice mostly because they have a lot of financial resources to spend upfront, so they think it's worthwhile/that they will hit that point where GCP/Azure/AWS services become a necessity compared to a traditional tech stack.)