The centralization is an issue, but AWS is stable as hell. When I was first in IT, tech support, I had to explain to customers daily that, “No, your internet is fine, it’s just that particular website that’s down.”
And the centralization wouldn’t be a thing if AWS didn’t route all IAM services through us-east-1. My Lightsail in us-west-1 was fine yesterday.
So your argument is that AWS centralization is good because Amazon is a good provider?
You do understand that they’re are loads of providers out there that are perfectly stable, but that are not Amazon?
I’ve never used it because I know how to manage a server, something you might want to expect from IT personnel that does development for companies, but there days let’s just ask Amazon todo it for us, we’re too lazy
Companies need hell of a lot more then virtual machines today. I dont use it personally either but would i recommend a company to buy their own hardware? No. I would say they should use AWS because they can afford it and it gives them access to hundreds of services. Its rare to see technical issues.
The value for a company is actually enormous, to have something like that at their fingertips.
Todays downtime is forgotten in a few days and it was a big one.
Who says companies need to buy their own hardware?
We have datacenters for that, you rent the hardware one way or the other.
I’m saying that nobody should put all their eggs in one basket because if that basket breaks, you’re all fucked.
If you have the need for high availability then you don’t out all your servers in a single datacenter, or with a single provider
If everyone and their mother is with one provider, you’ll first notice that said provider gets expensive pretty quick and you’ll also notice that when shit goes down that half the fucking internet follows.
My services weren’t down, and never have been. I don’t use AWS, because I don’t need it
The centralization is an issue, but AWS is stable as hell. When I was first in IT, tech support, I had to explain to customers daily that, “No, your internet is fine, it’s just that particular website that’s down.”
And the centralization wouldn’t be a thing if AWS didn’t route all IAM services through us-east-1. My Lightsail in us-west-1 was fine yesterday.
So your argument is that AWS centralization is good because Amazon is a good provider?
You do understand that they’re are loads of providers out there that are perfectly stable, but that are not Amazon?
I’ve never used it because I know how to manage a server, something you might want to expect from IT personnel that does development for companies, but there days let’s just ask Amazon todo it for us, we’re too lazy
Companies need hell of a lot more then virtual machines today. I dont use it personally either but would i recommend a company to buy their own hardware? No. I would say they should use AWS because they can afford it and it gives them access to hundreds of services. Its rare to see technical issues.
The value for a company is actually enormous, to have something like that at their fingertips.
Todays downtime is forgotten in a few days and it was a big one.
Who says companies need to buy their own hardware?
We have datacenters for that, you rent the hardware one way or the other.
I’m saying that nobody should put all their eggs in one basket because if that basket breaks, you’re all fucked.
If you have the need for high availability then you don’t out all your servers in a single datacenter, or with a single provider
If everyone and their mother is with one provider, you’ll first notice that said provider gets expensive pretty quick and you’ll also notice that when shit goes down that half the fucking internet follows.
My services weren’t down, and never have been. I don’t use AWS, because I don’t need it