Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#91

Post by oooyay »

latchkey wrote: post #89
oooyay wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there something I'm missing here? Your statement on the ease of migration really depends on your skill set. An increasing number of software engineers do not have to deal with real infrastructure whatsoever. Most of the "big" companies I've been at have pretty ready made platform abstractions for their engineers.

This is PaaS, there is no "infrastructure". It is a http handler function and that is it.

Yes, OP is talking about the ease of migration from cloud providers vs a PaaS. My point is most companies these days either build their own or operate a PaaS so "migrating cloud providers" would be daunting to them due to lack of exposure to core services (network, compute, etc).

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#92

Post by latchkey »

oooyay wrote: post #91
latchkey wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is PaaS, there is no "infrastructure". It is a http handler function and that is it.

Yes, OP is talking about the ease of migration from cloud providers vs a PaaS. My point is most companies these days either build their own or operate a PaaS so "migrating cloud providers" would be daunting to them due to lack of exposure to core services (network, compute, etc).

GCP Cloud Functions are PaaS running on top of a “cloud provider”. My point is that if you start with CF, there is no lock in and no migration.

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#94

Post by dilyevsky »

latchkey wrote: post #92
oooyay wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, OP is talking about the ease of migration from cloud providers vs a PaaS. My point is most companies these days either build their own or operate a PaaS so "migrating cloud providers" would be daunting to them due to lack of exposure to core services (network, compute, etc).

GCP Cloud Functions are PaaS running on top of a “cloud provider”. My point is that if you start with CF, there is no lock in and no migration.

How do you do secrets with CFs without lock-in? Telemetry? Releases? and on and on

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#95

Post by latchkey »

dilyevsky wrote: post #94
latchkey wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GCP Cloud Functions are PaaS running on top of a “cloud provider”. My point is that if you start with CF, there is no lock in and no migration.

How do you do secrets with CFs without lock-in? Telemetry? Releases? and on and on

Tons of options, some more "lock-in" than others. But the stuff you're talking about in general is really not that much lock-in.

For secrets, I personally use Github for that and you can add them in as a build step. Google also offers this: https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/configuring/secrets

For logging, I just use Google's logging layer. If I was to migrate somewhere else, I'd just use that logging layer.

For releases, I just used github releases as part of my build step. But google also has the concept of releases... https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/deploy

and on and on...

None of these are major lock-in problems though... any other PaaS platform you want to go to will need those sorts of things too.

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#96

Post by dilyevsky »

latchkey wrote: post #95
dilyevsky wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you do secrets with CFs without lock-in? Telemetry? Releases? and on and on

Tons of options, some more "lock-in" than others. But the stuff you're talking about in general is really not that much lock-in. For secrets, I personally use Github for that and you can add them in as a build step. Google also offers this: https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/configuring/secrets For logging, I just use Google's logging layer. If I was to migrate somewhere else, I'd just use that logging layer. Fo…

That "not that much" easily turns into months or years of migration once you put enough data into it. Cloud providers are showering startups with credits not due to their inherent kindness - they know once you're in it's tough to move out and you are seriously downplaying the amount of effort and costs involved here.

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#97

Post by latchkey »

dilyevsky wrote: post #96
latchkey wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tons of options, some more "lock-in" than others. But the stuff you're talking about in general is really not that much lock-in. For secrets, I personally use Github for that and you can add them in as a build step. Google also offers this: https://cloud.google.com/functions/docs/configuring/secrets For logging, I just use Google's logging layer. If I was to migrate somewhere else, I'd just use that logging layer. Fo…

That "not that much" easily turns into months or years of migration once you put enough data into it. Cloud providers are showering startups with credits not due to their inherent kindness - they know once you're in it's tough to move out and you are seriously downplaying the amount of effort and costs involved here.

It isn't expensive to run on Cloud Functions at all. You do it right and it scales pretty insanely high with very little additional cost. I've built multiple successful businesses with AppEngine and CF, so I'm keenly aware of their implementation details.

My point is that this is the solution to use and there really isn't any reason to switch. But, if you really were that bothered that you wanted to to switch, you aren't super tied to it in your codebase. I'm not saying the cost to switch is zero, I'm saying it isn't impossible.

Post reply on HN