6 ms·

Flynn is particularly appealing to companies that need to completely control their own infrastructure. In the same sense that git being open source helps, not h

Flynn is particularly appealing to companies that need to completely control their own infrastructure. In the same sense that git being open source helps, not hurts github, I think there's limited crossover between the users of Flynn and DotCloud customers.

druiid 13y ago
Not sure I completely agree with this. I don't know what your internal discussions were, but at least one of your competitors has an 'enterprise' option in which they give you your own version of the toolkit. Sadly among this was that they stopped with their open-source contributions to the Cloud Foundry community (Their last update appears to have been over two years ago https://github.com/cloudfoundry/vcap/pull/105 https://github.com/cloudfoundry/vcap/pull/105). I'm not complaining that an alternative to Cloud Foundry is going to exist, but I'm still a bit surprised.
- sciurus 13y ago
  Selling an on-premise "Enterprise PaaS" is one of the ways Red Hat is monetizing OpenShift. https://www.openshift.com/products/enterprise https://www.openshift.com/products/enterprise
  - druiid 13y ago
    Indeed and Cloud Foundry has 'enterprise' forks as well (Stackato: http://www.activestate.com/stackato/compare-with-cloud-foundry http://www.activestate.com/stackato/compare-with-cloud-found...). Essentially I think there's a huge market here and all I see for DotCloud from this announcement is at least some potential scavenging of their core users.
mwcampbell 13y ago
Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month? People who value a little extra effort at startup as being a cost that is more than $200/month over the life of their use of dotCloud. There's a lot of cases where that could be true, especially if the extra effort and moving to a different platform is deferred, rather than permanent. There are many times where doing something now (that isn't necessary for immediate goals, but is useful for long-term savings) has greater opportunity costs than doing it later. (Lots of times when the reverse is true, as well.)
- benologist 13y ago
  You're asking who would pay more for dotCloud vs. DIY on Amazon who themselves have a huge markup on their servers against traditional hosting?
  - mwcampbell 13y ago
    I compared to EC2 primarily because it also has hourly pricing. If I compared to DigitalOcean instead, then DotCloud would look even worse -- about 10x more expensive.
    - benologist 13y ago
      Correct. So who would pay for x when y? Everyone who wants x, not y.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  It seems to be working well for people paying for EC2 instances when they could be racking the hardware themselves. Having APIs, support, and a dedicated team handling the infrastructure is worth paying for to plenty of people.
- girvo 13y ago
  Me, for one. I CBF diddling around with firing up AMI's and dealing with everything myself anymore. A lot of developers are like that, too.
kibibu 13y ago
I think this is a false analogy. GitHub did not create Git, nor is their code open source.

druiid 13y ago

Not sure I completely agree with this. I don't know what your internal discussions were, but at least one of your competitors has an 'enterprise' option in which they give you your own version of the toolkit. Sadly among this was that they stopped with their open-source contributions to the Cloud Foundry community (Their last update appears to have been over two years ago https://github.com/cloudfoundry/vcap/pull/105 https://github.com/cloudfoundry/vcap/pull/105). I'm not complaining that an alternative to Cloud Foundry is going to exist, but I'm still a bit surprised.

sciurus 13y ago
Selling an on-premise "Enterprise PaaS" is one of the ways Red Hat is monetizing OpenShift. https://www.openshift.com/products/enterprise https://www.openshift.com/products/enterprise
- druiid 13y ago
  Indeed and Cloud Foundry has 'enterprise' forks as well (Stackato: http://www.activestate.com/stackato/compare-with-cloud-foundry http://www.activestate.com/stackato/compare-with-cloud-found...). Essentially I think there's a huge market here and all I see for DotCloud from this announcement is at least some potential scavenging of their core users.

mwcampbell 13y ago

Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month?

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month? People who value a little extra effort at startup as being a cost that is more than $200/month over the life of their use of dotCloud. There's a lot of cases where that could be true, especially if the extra effort and moving to a different platform is deferred, rather than permanent. There are many times where doing something now (that isn't necessary for immediate goals, but is useful for long-term savings) has greater opportunity costs than doing it later. (Lots of times when the reverse is true, as well.)
benologist 13y ago
You're asking who would pay more for dotCloud vs. DIY on Amazon who themselves have a huge markup on their servers against traditional hosting?
- mwcampbell 13y ago
  I compared to EC2 primarily because it also has hourly pricing. If I compared to DigitalOcean instead, then DotCloud would look even worse -- about 10x more expensive.
  - benologist 13y ago
    Correct. So who would pay for x when y? Everyone who wants x, not y.
darkarmani 13y ago
It seems to be working well for people paying for EC2 instances when they could be racking the hardware themselves. Having APIs, support, and a dedicated team handling the infrastructure is worth paying for to plenty of people.
girvo 13y ago
Me, for one. I CBF diddling around with firing up AMI's and dealing with everything myself anymore. A lot of developers are like that, too.

kibibu 13y ago

I think this is a false analogy. GitHub did not create Git, nor is their code open source.