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

AWS just went multi-cloud

acloudguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 145 posts

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#71

Post by cheesgrateron »

dboreham wrote: post #63
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

Any of the companies I've worked with (and I've worked with many) are large enough and have been around long enough to understand that re-architecting apps, doing lift-and-shifts, re-training employees, or anything like that is an inevitable cost of doing business that is going to happen every couple of years no matter what, so any time fretting about "lock in" would ultimately be a waste of time.

And perhaps more importantly to these companies, lock-in is more than worth it if it means benefiting from some real revenue or cost optimizations. Paying $3 to "unlock" from a platform is more than worth it if said platform gave me $5 of benefit.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#72

Post by julianozen »

rory_isAdonk wrote: post #64
julianozen wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No there isnt. I have only known of one person to get a PIP during my 3 years there, and it took way longer then it should've

Ah that was my fear, not because I feel like I'm a terrible software engineer and I'd be asking for PIP by joining Amazon. More just because mortgages etc, I'm very anxious money wise.

You'll be fine. Amazon didn't become the company it is today by burning out hardworking and talented engineers for no reason. In the scenario I am referring to, the engineer did a very poor job of communication and receiving feedback. When your company is as big as Amazon, you're going to have some people who didn't quite fit. The people who succeeded there don't spend their time talking to journalists or complaining on HN

Overall, I spent my time there working with ambitious and smart people. And money-wise, I feel like you can't work at a safer place in the tech industry then at a FAANG company, particularly Amazon.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#73

Post by staticassertion »

dboreham wrote: post #63
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

Lock-In is dead simple to avoid with AWS. Even with Lambda, which people tend to point to and say "lock-in!". Even now we've got lambdas running Docker containers.

It's a total boogeyman and I've never heard anyone care about it except on HN, where it comes up constantly.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#75

Post by belval »

rory_isAdonk wrote: post #12
julianozen wrote: post #7

I wonder if Amazon’s theory here is that by offering multi-cloud support they can put decision makers at ease when choosing cloud vendors by making them feel like they’re not getting locked into AWS - but Amazon also expects most customers to mostly only use AWS out of convenience Disclaimer - I used to work for AWS

Is working at AWS hellish? Or once you get in it's just a normal job? I get its heavily dependent on the team, just wondering from your perspective.

Not OP and YMMV but I really like my team and the engineering/research challenges we face are interesting.

I read the infamous "stay the fk away from Amazon" (https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/3ce0s8/dear_amazon...) before I was hired and the author's experience is completely misaligned with mine.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#76

Post by samstave »

cheesgrateron wrote: post #47
julianozen wrote: post #7

I wonder if Amazon’s theory here is that by offering multi-cloud support they can put decision makers at ease when choosing cloud vendors by making them feel like they’re not getting locked into AWS - but Amazon also expects most customers to mostly only use AWS out of convenience Disclaimer - I used to work for AWS

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

IME (my experience) -- Lock-in was really about APPs in the 90s and 2000s... JDE Edwards, IBM AS 400, etc...

AWS is a substrate platform, thus is does not look like lock-in in any other respect other that price.

if you marry with Oracle, JDE, AS-400 etc you are mapped to an APP and not a platform on which you can build WTF you want... so only noobs think of AWS as a lock-in because they are only looking a price/cost as opposed to the entire ripple effect of what it means to move/migrate core ops (typically finOps) between platforms...

Look at the underlying phys infra thats required to do at scale shit...

Thats the cost benefit analysis thats really overlooked. That hourly cost per comput/service/resource is mortgaging a SHIT TON of physical infrastructure that would cost a single company MILLIONS - yet - Amzn is literally investing everything that one company should in physical and digital security and executing it well...

And for that, I respect them and support them.

Anecdotal: I once had a dev (I was DEVOPS director) check in creds to github after it was the 251st repo (where our account only paid for 250) and by default at the time, Git made any repos above your account limit public, and bots scanned ALL of these - they got our creds in this devs post, and launched - from Germany - THOUSANDS of G-class instances for bitcoin mining.....

Anyway, an all-nighter - but Amazon refunded / canceled the tens of thousands of dollars in compute time without hesitation....

Cloudability proved to also be an invaluable resource - and While I am concerned over the bezos-new-world, Amazon never fails to make me appreciate their customer service... (they sent me the wrong SSD and sent me a new one, refunded my money and sent me a second one as well....)

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#77

Post by rory_isAdonk »

julianozen wrote: post #72
rory_isAdonk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah that was my fear, not because I feel like I'm a terrible software engineer and I'd be asking for PIP by joining Amazon. More just because mortgages etc, I'm very anxious money wise.

You'll be fine. Amazon didn't become the company it is today by burning out hardworking and talented engineers for no reason. In the scenario I am referring to, the engineer did a very poor job of communication and receiving feedback. When your company is as big as Amazon, you're going to have some people who didn't quite fit. The people who succeeded there don't spend their time talking to journalists or complaining…

Great I had aimed for applying for Stripe in August, again my anxiety is consistent I've quite a encompassing study guide I've made for myself.

Thanks though man you insight is invaluable.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#78

Post by victor106 »

dboreham wrote: post #63
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

While this makes sense what the parent comment said is also true.

I always wondered why big enterprise customers are not concerned about lock in. Maybe they cut multi year deals with the big cloud providers?

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#79

Post by victor106 »

samstave wrote: post #76
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

IME (my experience) -- Lock-in was really about APPs in the 90s and 2000s... JDE Edwards, IBM AS 400, etc... AWS is a substrate platform, thus is does not look like lock-in in any other respect other that price. if you marry with Oracle, JDE, AS-400 etc you are mapped to an APP and not a platform on which you can build WTF you want... so only noobs think of AWS as a lock-in because they are only looking a price/cost…

AWS/Azure lock in is more about data than platform.

Fortune 500 have lot of data and while its free to move data to a particular cloud provider they pay a bomb to take it out.

Re: AWS just went multi-cloud

#80

Post by bpodgursky »

dboreham wrote: post #63
cheesgrateron wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked as a consultant in this area for years with large F500 companies and not once have I heard anyone actually be concerned with the "lock in" boogeyman. There used to be a lot of concern around general trust of the cloud, which drove people to stick to on-prem servers. But "lock in", IME, is only something people fret about on HN. What I think is happening is that companies are starting to gain more experien…

Anyone who is not concerned about lock in is a fool. There are many fools in business.

It is easily 10x harder to migrate from on-prem to a cloud, than it is to migrate between clouds. The big cloud providers are all functionally REALLY similar, if you're mostly using the big components:

- Object storage is basically identical, often even down to common API wrappers

- VMs are VMs

- Kubernetes is Kubernetes. Containers are containers.

- EMR is Dataproc is whatever Azure has

- BigQuery is Redshift is whatever Azure provides. It's big SQL. Whatever.

Like, I'm not saying there isn't a cost, or it's pain-free... but you're not re-engineering everything when you migrate. You're finding fiddly difference between platforms, and if you're an enterprise, your new cloud provider would LOVE to help you with that migration.

Post reply on HN