I think this veteran Red Hatter is confusing the marketing names for actual useful services and technology.
IE. He's complaining about the "cloud" and says if you need servers, you should buy and maintain servers yourself. It's honestly absurd. This kind of mentality is gate keeping in my opinion by IT professionals - if you don't know how do setup and maintain a server, you should pay me to do it for you instead of paying AWS. I'm sure this guy would tell my grand parents if you need to back up photos on the iPhone, they should setup a personal NAS at home.
I find it ironic that The Register is publishing this when their tech stack likely uses everything listed, except maybe crypto.
PS. Don't mistaken me for a crypto currency supporter. They always lump crypto together with AI to try to dismiss AI. I'm a crypto hater.
If you need a server, AWS is much more expensive over said server's lifetime.
I think cloud is great for auto scaling from zero to billions of requests if you go full orchestration, but if you're running a stable operation where a box just runs 24/7 you will make back only the hardware cost in just a few months. Even with management AWS is much more expensive (and that needs to be managed too)
I think there's a point to cloud but picking up boxes and moving them to AWS, basically moving traditional equipment into cloud without actually transforming it to a cloud service, isn't it. You're just paying too much for someone else's computer without taking advantage of the special added value.
Which just happens to be exactly what my work is doing. We don't even take advantage of automated management like ansible, it's a joke really. The only reason is that we can say 'We're a cloud outfit' and some bookkeeping tricks moving capex to opex. But we burn much more money this way and have less control.
If you need a server, AWS is much more expensive over said server's lifetime.
We don't need to debate this that much longer. You need expertise to setup, maintain, troubleshoot, back up real servers. These things aren't free. While the physical server is cheaper, most companies will never scale enough to hire their own 24/7 physical server admin(s).
Of course, but the cost of AWS is much higher than doing that yourself. Also, you can outsource the physical part too which is still a lot cheaper than AWS.
This is an opinion piece to get people arguing. Other topics that activate people are which browser is best, iPhone vs Android, Which operating system..., Darkmode vs. ..., which scripting language..., Rust is best for ... and so on. 4chan-GPT posts this automatically on 4chan from Seychelles to get people arguing to keep the site looking active and it works every single time. El Reg is trolling.
I don't agree about containers, they are a really handy tool to produce stable(-ish) deployments.
Blockchain is probably the best single tool to do what software was designed to do since invented as a separate industry - scam people out of their money.
> I don't agree about containers, they are a really handy tool to produce stable(-ish) deployments.
Agreed - at least so long as we're living with the current OS paradigms that have been around since the 70s. Redhat: bring us something modern that handles software distribution/dependencies/lifecycle management/partitioning/security boundaries in a nicer way and maybe we won't need containers.
They're also really handy for trying stuff out and making it portable without having to fight tons of dependencies and specific stuff like puthon venvs etc.
I think this veteran Red Hatter is confusing the marketing names for actual useful services and technology.
IE. He's complaining about the "cloud" and says if you need servers, you should buy and maintain servers yourself. It's honestly absurd. This kind of mentality is gate keeping in my opinion by IT professionals - if you don't know how do setup and maintain a server, you should pay me to do it for you instead of paying AWS. I'm sure this guy would tell my grand parents if you need to back up photos on the iPhone, they should setup a personal NAS at home.
I find it ironic that The Register is publishing this when their tech stack likely uses everything listed, except maybe crypto.
PS. Don't mistaken me for a crypto currency supporter. They always lump crypto together with AI to try to dismiss AI. I'm a crypto hater.
If you need a server, AWS is much more expensive over said server's lifetime.
I think cloud is great for auto scaling from zero to billions of requests if you go full orchestration, but if you're running a stable operation where a box just runs 24/7 you will make back only the hardware cost in just a few months. Even with management AWS is much more expensive (and that needs to be managed too)
I think there's a point to cloud but picking up boxes and moving them to AWS, basically moving traditional equipment into cloud without actually transforming it to a cloud service, isn't it. You're just paying too much for someone else's computer without taking advantage of the special added value.
Which just happens to be exactly what my work is doing. We don't even take advantage of automated management like ansible, it's a joke really. The only reason is that we can say 'We're a cloud outfit' and some bookkeeping tricks moving capex to opex. But we burn much more money this way and have less control.
Of course, but the cost of AWS is much higher than doing that yourself. Also, you can outsource the physical part too which is still a lot cheaper than AWS.
This is an opinion piece to get people arguing. Other topics that activate people are which browser is best, iPhone vs Android, Which operating system..., Darkmode vs. ..., which scripting language..., Rust is best for ... and so on. 4chan-GPT posts this automatically on 4chan from Seychelles to get people arguing to keep the site looking active and it works every single time. El Reg is trolling.
I don't agree about containers, they are a really handy tool to produce stable(-ish) deployments.
Blockchain is probably the best single tool to do what software was designed to do since invented as a separate industry - scam people out of their money.
The rest, true.
> I don't agree about containers, they are a really handy tool to produce stable(-ish) deployments.
Agreed - at least so long as we're living with the current OS paradigms that have been around since the 70s. Redhat: bring us something modern that handles software distribution/dependencies/lifecycle management/partitioning/security boundaries in a nicer way and maybe we won't need containers.
They're also really handy for trying stuff out and making it portable without having to fight tons of dependencies and specific stuff like puthon venvs etc.