3 ms·
For purposes of this discussion, isn't AWS just a very large hosting provider? I.e. most hosting providers give you the option for virtual or dedicated hardwar
by zbentley 2y ago
For purposes of this discussion, isn't AWS just a very large hosting provider?
I.e. most hosting providers give you the option for virtual or dedicated hardware. So does Amazon (metal instances).
Like, "cloud" was always an ill-defined term, but in the case of "how do I provision full servers" I think there's no qualitative difference between Amazon and other hosting providers. Quantitative, sure.
- noprocrasted 2y ago> Amazon (metal instances) But you still get nickel & dimed and pay insane costs, including on bandwidth (which is free in most conventional hosting providers, and overages are 90x cheaper than AWS' costs).
- irunmyownemail 2y agoQualitatively, AWS is greedy and nickle and dime you to death. Their Route53 service doesn't even have all the standard DNS options I need and I can get everywhere else or even on my own running bind9. I do not use IPv6 for several reasons, when AWS decided charge for IPv4, I went looking elsewhere to get my VM's. I can't even imagine how much the US Federal Government is charging American taxpayers to pay AWS for hosting there, it has to be astronomical.
- everfrustrated 2y agoOut of curiosity, which DNS record types do you need that Route53 doesn't support?