591
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
591 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
59147 readers
1381 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean it's technically possible. AWS works. Generally maintaining a well working system requires a helluvalot less talent than building it anew. So you might be right. At the same time, they could be counting on new grads not knowing the company's internal history so they could lure the top with high salaries when they decide they need to fill up the brain. Top grads armed with decent documentation and stale brain support can get to from zero to high competency in a few years. Also they might be bending the rules in parts of the company where they see strategic advantage to keeping talent.
AWS works sometimes. It's a horrible hodgepodge of half baked stuff that doesn't make sense. Source: I was fighting with it for two years. Now I'm in an even worse place with Azure. I'm pushing for moving everything in house.
AWS is painful, but slightly less painful than rolling your own. It's their main selling point
It's good for developing PoC where you don't need to pay much to get going. But when you're taking on a production level load it'll be better to start thinking about having an on premise setup. BUT, if you're scaling up to the point where you need to have your own data center with all of its baggage, you're better off rolling with one of the cloud providers.
This is way more true than people realize.
AWS sounds amazing on paper and their marketing material is great. Once you get into the nitty gritty though things start to feel like everything is held together with string and chewing gum. Documentation is sparse, and often outright wrong. New services are implemented constantly but there is no one to talk to who can support them or knows anything about them. Features they claim are there simply...aren't.
It does indeed work, but it's a frustrating service to use and it's extremely expensive to boot.
It's quite possible. That said, I've done DevOps in a large, in-house DC with OpenStack, another one with VMware, then Azure, AWS, as well as bare metal at mom-and-pop DCs. AWS has been the best of the bunch by far.
Yup. The core aws services are solid and fucking impressive, but the only reason most of their value added stuff gets any customers is because they use the core stuff.theye mostly horrible and expensive.
Souce:worked for aws
Aws was amazing at first and the consistent UI makes it look clean, but it is a confusing mess imo.
Azure came in and fixed some of the pain points but it is just as confusing and frustrating now. I think outsourcing the cloud still makes sense in a lot of cases but they really are nothing special these days.
Serverless was a good step forward but had the same issues now that it is up and running.
There are a ton of small competitors now that can have the same availability so the big players can gouge you less I think too.
Yeah, you've got the idea. Oh, and don't forget about offshoring entire product lines.