Live data from Hacker News

Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

nytimes.com

241–250 of 359 posts

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#241
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What alternatives to AWS could save a non trivial amount of money? Especially for RDS? I think we're getting to the point where servers cost quite a bit

https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/px61-nvme Substract VAT from the price, add HDD for WAL, and setup PostgreSQL on a couple of them.

I have so far found Hetzner Dedicated servers to resist most forms of "infrastructure as code".

I can't seem to even be able to restore one from an image...

This applies only to dedicated ... but to me that's the interesting part of Hetzner.

I might just use Ansible to provision Hetzner servers that I set up manually initially. The cost savings are there to make it worth the hassle.

Wish there was a cleaner approach.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#242
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have very little incentive to interoperate with external organizations via open standards because they own many of the pieces which need to be interoperable. Thus, they can force users and developers to use their tooling, the applications they approve of, dictate what code will run on their platform, and how easily you can inspect, modify, or repair their products. I myself is wondering why this is not yet the…

TSMC are ""just"" a factory, they're not the ones with enough market power to do that and it would really annoy their customers. It's more people like Apple we're talking about here.

s/factory/foundry

That said, I think saying they are “only in manufacturing physical chips” is grossly minimizing what TSMC brings to the table for a major chip designer.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#243
Cloud changes the business dynamics with the chip business.

Before a Dell purchased a chip from Intel and sold the server to someone else.

Now the companies buying are running the servers. That changes everything. I would expect more and more the chips used to come from the big cloud providers.

I would expect once Google gets Zircon further along to build their own CPUs that are optimized for it.

I do hope they use RISC-V ISA like they have with the PVC.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#244
post #141
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make the server is cheaper and people will use them. It already doesn’t matter for a lot of people. Java? PHP? JS? C#? If you’re using in interpreted language then as long is the interpreter is updated you don’t need to care. Outside of that costs rule the day. If the arm servers are noticeably cheaper then people will be incentivized to make their software run on it. Tons of open source software runs on Windows. Why…

> Tons of open source software runs on Windows. Why isn’t windows more common on Azure and AWS? It costs more per hour. So those who could moved. Until we get something more practical than RDP mouse slinger GUI for remote admin, I doubt serious people want to use Windows, even if it cost the same.

Powershell Remoting has been a thing since Windows 2008, at least. Almost everything Microsoft made in the last decade has had Powershell support.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understand why you're being downvoted. Install Kubernetes and make your own cloud. It really depends on your workload whether that's better than managed cloud services with elastic scaling: * your software has a startup time that takes too long - cannot scale down easily * you have a constant base load with only moderate peaks * you'd rather run other background tasks at times with low load than scaling down -…

Installing kunernetes is something you can only suggest if you haven't done yourself. Getting it right is extremely non trivial

Could you share some insights on what you think is "extremely non trivial"? In what way is Kubernetes harder than what's to be expected of a technology that orchestrates serverside software? Doesn't this rather depend on the actual services you want to run rather than Kubernetes itself? Obviously it won't reduce complexity of what you want to run, but it makes deployments of it pretty straight forward as far as I can tell.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#246
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Apple, I find almost the opposite in terms of forced development. If I want to write a program on macOS, I can expect the porting effort to Linux to be simple if not trivial, thanks to UNIX. Compare that to Windows, which has ostensibly less control, but I continue to find to be a massive pain to develop for. With that said, if macOS lost UNIX, I’d be done.

You are speaking from inside the walled garden here, from the outside the effort of porting to macOS is monumental. The naive way is: I have to buy hardware, learn new Apple specific languages, learn a new OS, learn a new IDE, be compliant with their app store policies, distribution etc. (which applies to Windows now too I suppose).

Except for "I have to buy hardware", that's... just not true. Even buying the hardware can be circumvented but let's stay strictly legal here.

As OP said, it's unix, at least extremely unix-y so you don't have to learn apple specific languages. You can choose to do so for better integration to their system and vision and UI idioms (and should I say, macOS native applications are the BEST thought out applications you'll ever have the pleasure of using in user experience side). But whatever code you run in Linux will be trivially ported to macOS.

Learning a new OS is... I mean it is a new thing to learn but it isn't like you didn't learn the OS you are using at some point. Unless you think that there should be one and only one OS for the entire universe that everyone uses, this is an irrelevant point.

For the IDE, again, you don't have to, but you can choose to learn. Most popular IDEs natively work on macOS just fine, and you can just use your terminal like in any unix system, use your build scripts etc.

For macOS, you don't have to be compliant with anything, you can distribute your apps the old fashioned way. If you want to be in their dedicated store though, yeah they have rules. I think that makes sense.

For iOS, that store is the only way to distribute software and your points would make a bit more sense. But I actually am on the fence about the merit of the walled garden approach of iOS. Android ecosystem is a cesspool of malware. I can deal with malware on my computer. My computer has the resources etc. And computers are my job. But my mobile phone IMO has to run trusted code, I will happily delegate some standards to a central body as long as they manage it sufficiently well. When I install an app, I want to be sure that there are reasonable protections about what they can and can't access in my phone. I take my phone with me everywhere, it knows A LOT about me. I can't disassemble all binaries I use to make sure they aren't doing anything shady. Apple has automated tests for this stuff. I know it can't be bulletproof but it is something. They are fast to respond to exploits and they manage to keep their platform secure.

If a "free for all" device was popular, I'd still manage. I'd just have to be EXTRA EXTRA paranoid about what I install in my phone and it would decrease my productivity and quality of life quite a bit. That I can manage. But the whole ecosystem would be A LOT less secure. Not many people would exercise discipline. Viruses, malware, rootkits everywhere, billions of people carrying them in their pockets everywhere. My inclination right now is that that would be a worse deal right now for the world. While Centralisation and corporate power is something I generally despise, in this case (mobile OS, walled garden, corporate control over what apps can and can't do on their platform), I think can see the merit as long as they don't majorly screw it up.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dozens of small companies (ranging from a couple of people to a couple dozen) rely on me to decide and direct their tech stacks; I always suggest something other than Amazon even where Amazon is suggested first by them; the vast majority defer to my judgement. I think I'm not only doing them a service by avoiding lock-in to AWS specific "stuff", but also our industry and society at large by maintaining software diver…

>Dozens of small companies (ranging from a couple of people to a couple dozen) rely on me to decide and direct their tech stacks; I always suggest something other than Amazon even where Amazon is suggested first by them; the vast majority defer to my judgement. so what do you recommend instead of Amazon?

I too am interested in this. Alternatives, and the reasons for it. It isn't easy convincing suits - nobody is gonna get fired for suggesting AWS, so unless they are presented with a strong alternative, it isn't easy convincing managers not to go with AWS

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#249
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's just no way that's true. Their roadmap in 1996 was moving everyone to ia64/itanium. That was an unmitigated disaster and they were forced to license x64 from AMD. Yup, and their x86 backup plan (Netburst scaling all the way to 10GHz) was a dead end too.

but their plan C (revive the pentium III architecture) worked perfectly. We will have to see if they have plan C now(plan B being yet another iteration of the lake architecture with little changes).

doesn't it look like they're shifting to do chiplets as well at the moment? copying AMD might be their plan C, but it won't help if AMD can steam ahead with TSMC 7nm while Intel is locked to 14nm for a couple of years. That's going to hurt a lot.

Re: Amazon’s Chips Threaten Intel

#250
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started my professional career in AWS so I have zero experience in non-cloud businesses (i.e the vast majority of software jobs), but I always wonder about the cost argument people make against AWS (or any major cloud provider). It's very easy to overspend, sure. But say we're considering how well you execute in terms of picking the right tools for your case and utilizing the right cost saving measures. In the opti…

AWS has a few pain points in the cost department; especially Traffic is insanely expensive compared to other providers. Hetzner costs about 1$ per TB of Traffic. EC2 costs 88$ for that amount of outgoing data, Cloudfront 80$, etc. That's not even accounting that Hetzner doesn't bill incoming and internal traffic, which AWS does. There is no way that the little work I need to put up a network on a Hetzner host is wort…

This is a very interesting dynamic to me. Amazon seems to compete on price with EVERYONE on everything else, yet when it comes to AWS they’re so much more expensive than competition? Is this because their infrastructure is so much more expensive to run at 0 margins?
Post reply on HN