71–80 of 148 posts
But second, most of this complexity is in the name of security. I have plenty of criticism of my former employer (Amazon), but I have never once felt that AWS didn't take security seriously.
Use the SDK. Be happy that it will keep your calls very secure.
Ah that's nothing. Simple problem from a high level: static web site on apex domain. What you should be able to do: Click click done. Upload files to S3. Point CNAME at AWS. What you have to do: Create an S3 bucket and stick the files in it. Create a zone in Route 53 and import your old zone file. Change your nameservers at the registrar. Wait a bit. Go to ACM in the correct region and create a cert. Tell it to add t…
I prefer log into Hostgator, click cPanel, click File Manager, drag files across. Any day! Ok I missed: point DNS to Hostgator name servers. Click the button to install lets encrypt.
Many a time* I wished that Amazon would have a single easy-to-find documentation page listing common use cases and the de facto standard third-party tool (and there usually is one) to make a given case easier.
Fun side note: as a security professional, I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I've heard app owners claim that "AWS handles security for us" or some variation thereof.
*It's been a few years since I messed with AWS in depth; for all I know such a page may exist now.
Using the documentation from AWS website I implemented a mini SQS Library.
This was with 6 months AWS exp at the time.
So I don’t think it’s complicated especially compared to Azure or GC where the documentation is inferior.
Your complaint isn’t about AWS, it’s about the authentication scheme. I find it to be pretty neat, especially when it’s flexible enough to create signed URLs for any method and send them to third parties. We use that as a basis for service-to-service auth. It’s cool and flexible. But overall this complaint seems pretty shallow. You’d just use the client SDKs they publish, or if you want to really go off the beaten pa…
There are more languages than C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Kotlin, .NET, Node.js, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rust & Swift.
Your complaint isn’t about AWS, it’s about the authentication scheme. I find it to be pretty neat, especially when it’s flexible enough to create signed URLs for any method and send them to third parties. We use that as a basis for service-to-service auth. It’s cool and flexible. But overall this complaint seems pretty shallow. You’d just use the client SDKs they publish, or if you want to really go off the beaten pa…
> And if you’re building your own SDK (why?) There are more languages than C++, Go, Java, JavaScript, Kotlin, .NET, Node.js, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rust & Swift.
But if you’re building a feature to interact with AWS then ignoring the availability of SDKs is stupid. If you want to write your service in brainfuck then go for it, but don’t blame AWS for that decision.
Ah that's nothing. Simple problem from a high level: static web site on apex domain. What you should be able to do: Click click done. Upload files to S3. Point CNAME at AWS. What you have to do: Create an S3 bucket and stick the files in it. Create a zone in Route 53 and import your old zone file. Change your nameservers at the registrar. Wait a bit. Go to ACM in the correct region and create a cert. Tell it to add t…