Why just big 3? How about Digital Ocean?
Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
41–50 of 97 posts
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just like the dropbox launch just use ftp guy
Ouch, that's an absurd comparison. Instead of commenting nonsense, how about explaining to me how I'm missing the mark here? Let's break it down a bit... "Porter takes care of a lot of generic DevOps work for you (like setting up CI/CD, containerizing your applications, autoscaling, SSL certificates, setting up a reverse proxy)." All of this is done for you on GCP with the aforementioned services. "Porter Cloud for a…
It looks like Preview Environments could be a part of it. It seems costly though. It says they get a copy of the database. I don’t know if they pass the costs on to the customers and if the customers have to avoid pushing code too often without excluding it from the build (by adding something like “no ci” to the commit message).
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#43talk to me about GPU’s? I saw some gpu_node config stuff in your documentation a couple days ago. If Porter can host GPU’s, that’s a superpower render.com doesn’t have.
We support GPUs if you use standard Porter on any of the three cloud providers. Also coming soon to Porter Cloud.
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#44I personally don't get it. You can start on GCP today, without being tied to GCP much at all. It isn't even expensive to do so. Is there something I'm missing here? Cloud Functions are just a http handler with no hard dependencies on GCP. Cloud Tasks are just a handler and the tasks just hit your Cloud Functions. Cloud SQL is just postgres. You connect your github with actions that CI/CD auto deploy to the above. If…
Cloud providers (particularly the hyperscalers) are ultimately bundles of multiple services. Given that the hyperscalers do almost everything, you could extend this point in a variety of ways: why do companies already on AWS bother to use MongoDB, Snowflake, or even GitHub when DynamoDB, Redshift, and CodeCommit exist?
The answer tends to boil down to a combination of developer experience, performance, and pricing. Fwiw the actual platform offerings on GCP are also more intuitive than the equivalent services on AWS + Azure where most businesses/startups are hosting services
Edit: cloud vendor lock-in is also a very real phenomenon regardless of how much it just "looks like" all cloud providers should be easily interchangeable. Needless to say, the incentives when you make money selling compute are to keep people on your stuff
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#45I personally don't get it. You can start on GCP today, without being tied to GCP much at all. It isn't even expensive to do so. Is there something I'm missing here? Cloud Functions are just a http handler with no hard dependencies on GCP. Cloud Tasks are just a handler and the tasks just hit your Cloud Functions. Cloud SQL is just postgres. You connect your github with actions that CI/CD auto deploy to the above. If…
You're just like the dropbox launch just use ftp guy
That's definitely not the same situation. Porter's advantage would be pricing but GCP, AWS and Azure give away thousands of USD for startups to start so it's even cheaper than Porter to start.
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#46I personally don't get it. You can start on GCP today, without being tied to GCP much at all. It isn't even expensive to do so. Is there something I'm missing here? Cloud Functions are just a http handler with no hard dependencies on GCP. Cloud Tasks are just a handler and the tasks just hit your Cloud Functions. Cloud SQL is just postgres. You connect your github with actions that CI/CD auto deploy to the above. If…
As long as the cloud providers of the world keep inevitably converging to, often against their own will, a single standard for each piece of the infrastructure (e.g. k8s, postgres, S3), most things that you deploy on the cloud will remain portable. You are never truly locked-in.
Similarly, if you want to, you can move away even from a PaaS that is explicitly designed to lock you in to another cloud provider. And as I mentioned in the post, this is exactly what we've done for countless companies that wanted to move from a PaaS to the big 3 cloud providers.
The more important question is: what is the switching cost? Why do companies so rarely switch hosting providers and if they do, why does it take months and sometimes years for them to move?
We want the process of moving from Porter Cloud to one of the hyperscalers as arbitrary as a click of a button.
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just like the dropbox launch just use ftp guy
Ouch, that's an absurd comparison. Instead of commenting nonsense, how about explaining to me how I'm missing the mark here? Let's break it down a bit... "Porter takes care of a lot of generic DevOps work for you (like setting up CI/CD, containerizing your applications, autoscaling, SSL certificates, setting up a reverse proxy)." All of this is done for you on GCP with the aforementioned services. "Porter Cloud for a…
I love GCP (did a migration to it at my last place), but I think like all cloud providers, it's a lot more "some assembly required" than Porter looks like, or like Heroku used to be back in the day.
To my knowledge GCP doesn't have a git-push deployment. Cloud Run might be the closest thing if you do a Docker push, but that is just one part, then you need a database, still need CI/CD, etc.
It's close. And while I like the look of Porter, I probably wouldn't bother and would jump straight to GCP, but I do think there are usability differences.
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're just like the dropbox launch just use ftp guy
That's definitely not the same situation. Porter's advantage would be pricing but GCP, AWS and Azure give away thousands of USD for startups to start so it's even cheaper than Porter to start.
For startups with credits, we offer this deal so you can pair up Porter with your cloud credits: https://porter.run/for-seed-stage-startups.
We also offer a feature called one-click SOC2 compliance that configures your AWS account to pass controls on platforms like Vanta/Drata in a single click, which many startups find useful.
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#49I personally don't get it. You can start on GCP today, without being tied to GCP much at all. It isn't even expensive to do so. Is there something I'm missing here? Cloud Functions are just a http handler with no hard dependencies on GCP. Cloud Tasks are just a handler and the tasks just hit your Cloud Functions. Cloud SQL is just postgres. You connect your github with actions that CI/CD auto deploy to the above. If…
Cloud providers (particularly the hyperscalers) are ultimately bundles of multiple services. Given that the hyperscalers do almost everything, you could extend this point in a variety of ways: why do companies already on AWS bother to use MongoDB, Snowflake, or even GitHub when DynamoDB, Redshift, and CodeCommit exist? The answer tends to boil down to a combination of developer experience, performance, and pricing. F…
Totally; the ability to migrate seamlessly between cloud providers is compelling to many
Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ouch, that's an absurd comparison. Instead of commenting nonsense, how about explaining to me how I'm missing the mark here? Let's break it down a bit... "Porter takes care of a lot of generic DevOps work for you (like setting up CI/CD, containerizing your applications, autoscaling, SSL certificates, setting up a reverse proxy)." All of this is done for you on GCP with the aforementioned services. "Porter Cloud for a…
I love GCP (did a migration to it at my last place), but I think like all cloud providers, it's a lot more "some assembly required" than Porter looks like, or like Heroku used to be back in the day. To my knowledge GCP doesn't have a git-push deployment. Cloud Run might be the closest thing if you do a Docker push, but that is just one part, then you need a database, still need CI/CD, etc. It's close. And while I lik…
> To my knowledge GCP doesn't have a git-push deployment.
https://cloud.google.com/source-repositories/docs/deploy-clo...
It also has the ability to deploy cloud functions directly from github actions, which is super easy to set up and works really well...
https://github.com/google-github-actions/deploy-cloud-functi...
> I probably wouldn't bother and would jump straight to GCP
This is exactly my point. Just do that.