Seriously? As another technical person, AWS architecture is an abomination. Poor to lacking documentation, inconsistent behavior across the board, possibly the worst GUI in the world that should be deprecated and replaced with a consistent CLI as the only means of interaction.
We need to go back to hosting our own servers. Not everybody is Google or some overfunded startup trying to hit an inflection point before they run out of somebody else's money. For 90% of people using AWS its overpriced overkill and a huge step backwards from VPSs and colocation.
You’re not supposed to be using the consul or the CLI unless it’s for testing or analytics. you should be using stacks, serverless, terraform, cloud formation for your actual infrastructure.
I hate Bezos, I dislike all the Chinese garbage on Amazon, but AWS is the best cloud hosting there is. Your other options are azure and GCP... so it’s not a tough fight.
More layers on top of layers for what? Saying AWS is the best cloud hosting is like saying McDonals makes the best $1 hamburger, it still sucks. We've replaced the learning of evergreen skills that let us run on a variety of hosting providers for chasing AWS's tail just to pay more for a tiny slice of virtual hardware than we would for running our own colo.
Yes there are businesses that really do need that level of hardware spun up instantly, particularly anybody trying to move massive amounts of audio or video around the globe without having to invest the upfront costs to find out if they even have a viable business model, but those are far and few between.
And this is before we get into the foolishness is that moving the internet from what used to be the single most widely distributed invulnerable to disruption open source free systems on the planet to a proprietary IaaS company with a seriously evil political agenda.
AWS is exactly the wrong use case for shunting audio and video around the internet. You'll get cleaned out if you try to do that on AWS. There's 2 companies that are pulling it off. Netflix, which has partner boxes in each isp in America which dramatically lightens the load, and they're shuffling the cash in with their unsustainable production budget. The other is twitch, which got bought by Amazon and now server and data costs are inter-department funny money; and they're also in the process of fucking the userbase out of every slim dime by injecting ads everywhere and pissing off the talent.
The only way to make it make sense is to rollout your own boxes into strategic colos to the areas you want to serve. Look at Floatplane as an example.
I am in no way defending DO, I have been warning about the cloud craze and intentional heavy downplaying of the risks and disadvantages for long time. But I don't see the connection to DO in the linked post.
and just because aws servers are used..its not the same as aws using aws servers to do it. i expect my linux to run in the cloud no matter what i am doing. aws promisses uptime. Its not garands fault there are dead nazis.
You do know that "serverless" still runs on a server, right? And if you aren't configuring the server your code is running on, someone else is.
Serverless is lying to yourself about who your neighbors are. Anyone could be running spectre attacks or rowhammer on the physical host you're sharing. At least when you spin up your vm you can pay to keep your own cores and the hyperthreads.
Agree re: the documentation, and even the coursework and cert tracks. So much focus on presales PR crap. And I agree about the GUIs. But having been involved in an effort to stand up a globally scaleable network and seeing a lot of time and $$$ put into it especially given blindspots talent-wise when it came to people organically part of the organization or even subcontracted, I appreciate what AWS offers.
For 90% of people using AWS its overpriced overkill.
Won't disagree there. My admiration is from the perspective of huge, worldwide corps.
Especially with what's out now. You can relatively easily set up esxi or xen to do dynamic vm spin-ups, or deploy openstack and do containers on hardware.
The aws model was a revolution, but the rest of the market caught up, but tech companies are too busy convincing themselves they don't have the technical ability to pull it off.
Yeah, I know a good little slice of it but about a year ago, I was contacted by a recruiter for a position using AWS. They wanted someone who knew all of it and what I knew wasn't enough. Two months later, different recruiter, same position, same requirements. I guess eventually they'll find someone who claims they have the knowledge but doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Seriously? As another technical person, AWS architecture is an abomination. Poor to lacking documentation, inconsistent behavior across the board, possibly the worst GUI in the world that should be deprecated and replaced with a consistent CLI as the only means of interaction.
We need to go back to hosting our own servers. Not everybody is Google or some overfunded startup trying to hit an inflection point before they run out of somebody else's money. For 90% of people using AWS its overpriced overkill and a huge step backwards from VPSs and colocation.
You’re not supposed to be using the consul or the CLI unless it’s for testing or analytics. you should be using stacks, serverless, terraform, cloud formation for your actual infrastructure.
I hate Bezos, I dislike all the Chinese garbage on Amazon, but AWS is the best cloud hosting there is. Your other options are azure and GCP... so it’s not a tough fight.
More layers on top of layers for what? Saying AWS is the best cloud hosting is like saying McDonals makes the best $1 hamburger, it still sucks. We've replaced the learning of evergreen skills that let us run on a variety of hosting providers for chasing AWS's tail just to pay more for a tiny slice of virtual hardware than we would for running our own colo.
Yes there are businesses that really do need that level of hardware spun up instantly, particularly anybody trying to move massive amounts of audio or video around the globe without having to invest the upfront costs to find out if they even have a viable business model, but those are far and few between.
And this is before we get into the foolishness is that moving the internet from what used to be the single most widely distributed invulnerable to disruption open source free systems on the planet to a proprietary IaaS company with a seriously evil political agenda.
AWS is exactly the wrong use case for shunting audio and video around the internet. You'll get cleaned out if you try to do that on AWS. There's 2 companies that are pulling it off. Netflix, which has partner boxes in each isp in America which dramatically lightens the load, and they're shuffling the cash in with their unsustainable production budget. The other is twitch, which got bought by Amazon and now server and data costs are inter-department funny money; and they're also in the process of fucking the userbase out of every slim dime by injecting ads everywhere and pissing off the talent.
The only way to make it make sense is to rollout your own boxes into strategic colos to the areas you want to serve. Look at Floatplane as an example.
Preach.
Digital Ocean, Vultr, ...
Funny how all the research I did and the people I found have heavy links to Digital Ocean as well. My original post: https://thedonald.win/p/11PpU44mO4/exposed-voting-machines-amazon-c/
I am in no way defending DO, I have been warning about the cloud craze and intentional heavy downplaying of the risks and disadvantages for long time. But I don't see the connection to DO in the linked post.
and just because aws servers are used..its not the same as aws using aws servers to do it. i expect my linux to run in the cloud no matter what i am doing. aws promisses uptime. Its not garands fault there are dead nazis.
You do know that "serverless" still runs on a server, right? And if you aren't configuring the server your code is running on, someone else is.
Serverless is lying to yourself about who your neighbors are. Anyone could be running spectre attacks or rowhammer on the physical host you're sharing. At least when you spin up your vm you can pay to keep your own cores and the hyperthreads.
Agree re: the documentation, and even the coursework and cert tracks. So much focus on presales PR crap. And I agree about the GUIs. But having been involved in an effort to stand up a globally scaleable network and seeing a lot of time and $$$ put into it especially given blindspots talent-wise when it came to people organically part of the organization or even subcontracted, I appreciate what AWS offers.
Won't disagree there. My admiration is from the perspective of huge, worldwide corps.
I'm sober, for Randy Bobandi.
But a little drinkiepoo of swish doesn't count.
But they need everyone to move to cloud as it makes it so much easier to gather all the data. Their AI will never be complete without this.
I agree 100% about running our own servers. Companies are fools for moving to AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, whatever...
Especially with what's out now. You can relatively easily set up esxi or xen to do dynamic vm spin-ups, or deploy openstack and do containers on hardware.
The aws model was a revolution, but the rest of the market caught up, but tech companies are too busy convincing themselves they don't have the technical ability to pull it off.
with 30+ years in the industry I couldn't agree more with the above.
AWS is 1 trillion things besides web hosting
Yeah, I know a good little slice of it but about a year ago, I was contacted by a recruiter for a position using AWS. They wanted someone who knew all of it and what I knew wasn't enough. Two months later, different recruiter, same position, same requirements. I guess eventually they'll find someone who claims they have the knowledge but doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
No one knows all of AWS.
Not even Amazon.