4 ms·
If you want to hire someone to walk your dog you probably won't put an ad in the New york times to a head hunter that you will pay by the hour with no oversight
by bobthebutcher 2y ago
If you want to hire someone to walk your dog you probably won't put an ad in the New york times to a head hunter that you will pay by the hour with no oversight and it would be totally unfair to that head hunter when you don't want to pay them for the time of all those interviews. But an infinitely scalable service you somehow can't put immediately terminal limits on is somehow fine on the cloud.
- bippihippi1 2y agoit loses trust with customers when the simple setup is flawed. S3 is rightly built to support as much egress as any customer would want, but wrong to make it complex to set up rules to limit the bandwidth and price. It should be possible to use the service, especially common ones like S3 with little knowledge of architecture and stuff.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> it loses trust with customers when the simple setup is flawed. S3’s simple setup (which denies all public access) is not flawed in the manner being discussed here. Allowing public direct access to an S3 bucket is a supported option, but for years has been both non-default and strongly recommended against.