3 ms·

Because with cloud providers you don’t need anyone on staff to understand the product, keep up with the constant changes and predatory features they slip in, ma

by orev 2y ago

Because with cloud providers you don’t need anyone on staff to understand the product, keep up with the constant changes and predatory features they slip in, manage the cost overruns, or help to migrate away from their proprietary data formats once you’ve had enough of their “whaddaya gonna do about it?” treatment of customers?

mikestew 2y ago
True or not, it doesn't invalidate GP's statement. You don't just throw a NAS in Mom's garage and call it a day.
- Cheer2171 2y ago
  Yes, it isn't bare metal vs cloud, it is being your own sysadmin vs relying on someone to sysadmin for you
  - dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
    I don't get your point. It doesn't matter if you host your stuff on AWS, Hetzner, or locally on a Pi, you need someone to manage that. If you are this someone, great, if not, you need to pay someone else. And contrary to what private cloud providers advertise,[0] the amount of work is similar in each case. [Or used to, around 2006 or so - I'm not sure if they still claim managing public cloud resources is means less work.]
- orev 2y ago
  It does invalidate the argument. They’re implying that with self hosting you need someone to manage it, but with cloud you don’t. The truth is you need someone managing both scenarios, and the cost remains roughly the same.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    Does it? It is a lot easier to find people who can work with Office 365 than who can stand up and maintain a comparable suite of selfhosted services, especially when considering needs like secure remote access. I don't know who else here has ever actually done the kind of work that we're talking about, but I have, for contract clients, over the span of most of a decade. Between G Suite and Office 365, those jobs dried up fast about a decade ago, and I wasn't sorry; the thing about selfhosted deployments of this type is that no matter how standard you try to make the platform, clients' requirements persist in varying, so each deployment ends up a somewhat different artifact whose differences, because those get less investment of effort than the common aspects, are always what cause the most problems and cost the most money in maintenance. No one was sorry to see that expense dwindle with the rise of SaaS officeware platforms; even for me, it wasn't a loss, because it freed up my time for more interesting and lucrative engagements. Of course I'm sure that, for those of you saying this is easy, your experience is different from mine. It would be really interesting to hear more about how you've been able to make selfhosted deployments work so well for folks who aren't technical. That's a really significant achievement! Teams like Sandstorm have spent years at it and come away with nothing of import to show, and I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to know more about how folks here have overcome the same challenges.

by orev 2y ago

mikestew 2y ago

True or not, it doesn't invalidate GP's statement. You don't just throw a NAS in Mom's garage and call it a day.

Cheer2171 2y ago
Yes, it isn't bare metal vs cloud, it is being your own sysadmin vs relying on someone to sysadmin for you
- dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
  I don't get your point. It doesn't matter if you host your stuff on AWS, Hetzner, or locally on a Pi, you need someone to manage that. If you are this someone, great, if not, you need to pay someone else. And contrary to what private cloud providers advertise,[0] the amount of work is similar in each case. [Or used to, around 2006 or so - I'm not sure if they still claim managing public cloud resources is means less work.]
orev 2y ago
It does invalidate the argument. They’re implying that with self hosting you need someone to manage it, but with cloud you don’t. The truth is you need someone managing both scenarios, and the cost remains roughly the same.
- throwanem 2y ago
  Does it? It is a lot easier to find people who can work with Office 365 than who can stand up and maintain a comparable suite of selfhosted services, especially when considering needs like secure remote access. I don't know who else here has ever actually done the kind of work that we're talking about, but I have, for contract clients, over the span of most of a decade. Between G Suite and Office 365, those jobs dried up fast about a decade ago, and I wasn't sorry; the thing about selfhosted deployments of this type is that no matter how standard you try to make the platform, clients' requirements persist in varying, so each deployment ends up a somewhat different artifact whose differences, because those get less investment of effort than the common aspects, are always what cause the most problems and cost the most money in maintenance. No one was sorry to see that expense dwindle with the rise of SaaS officeware platforms; even for me, it wasn't a loss, because it freed up my time for more interesting and lucrative engagements. Of course I'm sure that, for those of you saying this is easy, your experience is different from mine. It would be really interesting to hear more about how you've been able to make selfhosted deployments work so well for folks who aren't technical. That's a really significant achievement! Teams like Sandstorm have spent years at it and come away with nothing of import to show, and I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to know more about how folks here have overcome the same challenges.