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

Amazon Web Services in Plain English

expeditedssl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 237 posts

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#161

Post by shiftpgdn »

angry_octet wrote: post #94

I can't agree. This is like all those people who wasted money buying shop.com, and tv.com, when all the recognition is in ebay.com and youtube.com. If you listen to people talk about cloud services they say 'competitor-X's S3 clone', AWS owns the terminology. Also, S3 is NOT some ftp service, it is a new concept. And why should they call Cloudfront instead Amazon CDN? Anyone using it knows what a CDN is and what Clou…

I don't know who you hang around by Amazon does NOT own the terminology. There have been common names for all this stuff for the last 10-30 years.

Amazon invented their own terms out of hubris.

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#162

Post by numbsafari »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #142
Goladus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only real resemblance at all to FTP is that you use GET and PUT instead of filesystem commands. I mean, I guess if you really don't understand what FTP is and have no desire to understand how S3 is different from posix, then saying you have to use S3 like you use FTP kind of works. But it would be misleading to everyone else. > It's probably more redundant than FTP FTP is a transfer protocol , it says nothing abo…

Using FTP as shorthand is better than "Object Store", which sounds like the marketing BS this is designed to avoid.

FTP is a terrible shorthand because it's confusing and archaic. S3 doesn't even natively support FTP.

Calling it a "file server" is way more reasonable.

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#163

Post by stephenr »

numbnuts wrote: post #153
stephenr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call this worked up or upset. The post claims to have "better hames" for the AWS services. Many of those names are much worse. Take the suggested "Amazon Beginning Cut Pro" which was their suggestion for "Elastic Transcoder". "Beginning Cut Pro" is clearly a reference to Apple's NLE, Final Cut Pro. I would suggest that there are literally zero people on the planet, who would use Amazon's video transcoding…

I wouldn't want to be around you when you're actually worked up. I found it both funny and useful. But I can see where you're coming from. If I wanted something fucking accurate that goes into greater fucking detail than 1-2 mostly tongue-in-cheek sentences I'd go to the fucking source.

The fucking source is confusing, remember? This is frankly just as confusing for different reasons. It isn't funny enough to be considered comedy so I honestly don't understand the point.

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#164

Post by shampine »

mkobit wrote: post #159
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #67

Hey HN, I wrote this, thanks for all the feedback. In particular if I've mischaracterized the functionality of a service or you see something that's really off please email me at mike@expeditedssl.com or just tell me here and I'll fix it.

I would have preferred if some of the full comedic ones were toned down because this has some use. The amount of AWS services is hard to keep track of, especially considering when they have a bunch of slightly different solutions to a similar problem, is quite staggering. E.g. I want to deploy my code - should I use Ops Works, Pipelines, CodeDeploy, Ec2 Container Service, Elastic Beanstalk, Elastic Breadstick, CodePi…

I'm going to start saying Elastic Breadstick and see if my PM starts using the phrase to solve everything. He likes buzzwords.

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#165

Post by michaelbuckbee »

mkobit wrote: post #159
michaelbuckbee wrote: post #67

Hey HN, I wrote this, thanks for all the feedback. In particular if I've mischaracterized the functionality of a service or you see something that's really off please email me at mike@expeditedssl.com or just tell me here and I'll fix it.

I would have preferred if some of the full comedic ones were toned down because this has some use. The amount of AWS services is hard to keep track of, especially considering when they have a bunch of slightly different solutions to a similar problem, is quite staggering. E.g. I want to deploy my code - should I use Ops Works, Pipelines, CodeDeploy, Ec2 Container Service, Elastic Beanstalk, Elastic Breadstick, CodePi…

I'd considered calling it "Amazon State Machine" - better?

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#166

Post by lazyant »

One of the good things about this is that when somebody comes again comparing AWS to any regular ISP's VM we can point at this to show that EC2 alone may not look favourably in a comparison, it's the other services in the vast AWS ecosystem that brings the value.

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#167

Post by sbilstein »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #142
Goladus wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only real resemblance at all to FTP is that you use GET and PUT instead of filesystem commands. I mean, I guess if you really don't understand what FTP is and have no desire to understand how S3 is different from posix, then saying you have to use S3 like you use FTP kind of works. But it would be misleading to everyone else. > It's probably more redundant than FTP FTP is a transfer protocol , it says nothing abo…

Using FTP as shorthand is better than "Object Store", which sounds like the marketing BS this is designed to avoid.

Object store is what it is...FTP would be marketing BS implying something that the service isn't at all.

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#168

Post by lhc- »

gldalmaso wrote: post #58
stephenr wrote: post #32

Let me preface this by saying I use AWS only when clients insist on it. I think there are much better options that don't lock their customers in anywhere near to the same level. I think AWS has plenty of badly named services, but some of these suggestions are much worse worse (and have a huge American influence - that fascination with using brand/implementation names for a generic/standard item) than the current actu…

to add: * Amazon Unlimited FTP Server: you can't really interact with S3 using a ftp client

Pretty sure CrossFTP supports talking to S3 stores (I use it at work to connect to our internal Ceph Object Store, basically S3)

Re: Amazon Web Services in Plain English

#170

Post by mkobit »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #165
mkobit wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have preferred if some of the full comedic ones were toned down because this has some use. The amount of AWS services is hard to keep track of, especially considering when they have a bunch of slightly different solutions to a similar problem, is quite staggering. E.g. I want to deploy my code - should I use Ops Works, Pipelines, CodeDeploy, Ec2 Container Service, Elastic Beanstalk, Elastic Breadstick, CodePi…

I'd considered calling it "Amazon State Machine" - better?

I'd say that is better than what I came up with.

I really like this concept of a product TLDR. It reminds me of https://tldrlegal.com/. I wish these sorts of summaries were available for other software products and services. It would help when trying to get a simple understanding of all the buzzwords that I can't keep up with without having to read pages of documentation or look at examples.

Post reply on HN