501–510 of 684 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation changed. A license that's the right choice at one point may not be the right license a decade later.
I hate Amazon and monopolies, but I hate companies that think opensourcing their code as a marketing stunt gives them more rights or whatever. If you don't want to opensource, then don't?!
I always smile at posts like this. They're right and wrong at the same time. Systems should be "as simple as possible, but no simpler". And thinking that you can gloss over the detail is just going to create more hassle later on. IAM is just complex. I can't think of any implementation of "users, groups, roles, policies, identity providers, oidc" that is truly simple. I'm reminded of a guy I worked with, who fought a…
If you are dynamically scaling a set of web services sure. The problem is that people use k8s for running batch pipelines and streaming analytic services and a bunch of other things too. And k8s is terrible at doing those things and entirely too complex. And if you don't have to scale your web services very often, then k8s is a waste in that case too. Its a right tool for the job and k8s's job isn't deploying to the cloud, its dynamically scaling a website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a lot of data it's cheaper to lease a Direct Connect line into an AWS zone and suck it out through that.
I might be reading the pricing wrong but you have to pay per hour for the port plus per GB transfer? And looks like the cheapest is $0.02 per GB? Is that really the 'cheap' option? That looks fine for a TB or two, but still crazy when getting closer to PBs.
But to be fair, I deal with several customers that are in the double digit petabyte scale. When you’re operating at that scale, and have 7-figure AWS bills on a monthly basis, AWS is suddenly a lot more available to you and much more willing to accommodate pretty much anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some internal perspective - IAM has maybe thousands of options but fundamentally it is "what does this role have access to doing (action + resource)" + "who has access to this role". That is really it from a 10k foot level. IAM is great because it applies internally just like it does externally. The internal AWS team don't get more access than you do, and if we get access to do certain thing on your account to perfor…
> but fundamentally it is "what does this role have access to doing (action + resource)" + "who has access to this role". That is really it from a 10k foot level. Hahahaha. No, fundamentally it is one input into a huge mess that you cannot actually see or audit from a 10k foot level. AWS has produced a long, rambling and imprecise description of (some of?) what’s actually going on. You can read it here: https://docs.…
I don't work for IAM but I worked for several other teams over the years and IAM is actually one of the least confusing services. But I am definitely biased and have more than average amount of experience on this particular subject. I still think the general idea is more sane than Azure Account for example. I do think this reflect on the philosophical level where whether cloud are building blocks or are they consulting projects. I personally think IAM is done right in that regard.
I'm surprised by the author's hate towards DynamoDB. It's probably one of my favorite AWS Services. Great availability and no operational overhead. Cost was pretty minimal too each time I've used it, but you do need to spend some time architecting your data model up front, and that requires reading service docs and understanding it.
We used DynamoDB pretty much exclusively at Tinder, cause it was the founders choice early on. Horrible horrible choice and after 4 years working on it I dont see why you would. 1. you have a limited number of global supported indexes, 5 iirc, which means your queries are very limited. If your use case ever expands beyond that you're pretty screwed. 2. You will have race conditions. Strong consistency is 2x the cost,…
you can create 20 global (GSI) and 5 local (LSI) indexes per table[1], I think the number must have been lower at some point in the past, because it's not the first time I hear this complaint
[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of these projects work on a business model where they open-source their core product, and provide advanced services, installation, maintenance or fully-managed services around their product. AWS was bypassing them by providing fully-managed services. On this, I am on the side of the people behind the projects. Basically AWS was eating their lunch. They had no choice but to change the licenses.
They have a problem with their business model, then. License changes to a formerly open source project are costly. The community reacts very strongly when license terms change after they've come to depend on a product, and they should. Why do we apply this standard to MongoDB but not to Apache, Linux, Postgres, or MariaDB? One purpose of an open source license is to allow many providers to provide the service. As I'v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you would be surprised how many commits in OSS comes from paid workers of the various cloud companies and tech companies out there.
> I think you would be surprised how many commits in OSS comes from paid workers of the various cloud companies and tech companies out there. And I think the value that various cloud companies and tech companies derive from open source by far exceeds their contributions to it. When you add in the economic contribution, those OSS value-adds are an order of magnitude higher. According this Harvard paper [1], the cost t…
Isn't that how literally all economic exchange works? Why do you think your boss pays your salary?
If the argument is that Amazon should invest 110% of their OSS-derived profits back into OSS, then OSS ceases to have any value to them. They would simply write their own closed-source software, which would be trivial for a company of Amazon's size, and we'd all be poorer off for not having OSS. Getting one percent of someone's profit is better than getting zero percent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We used DynamoDB pretty much exclusively at Tinder, cause it was the founders choice early on. Horrible horrible choice and after 4 years working on it I dont see why you would. 1. you have a limited number of global supported indexes, 5 iirc, which means your queries are very limited. If your use case ever expands beyond that you're pretty screwed. 2. You will have race conditions. Strong consistency is 2x the cost,…
> you have a limited number of global supported indexes, 5 iirc you can create 20 global (GSI) and 5 local (LSI) indexes per table[1], I think the number must have been lower at some point in the past, because it's not the first time I hear this complaint [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. But so would financially contributing to the folks who did the work.
AWS literally did that. They paid for full time developers to contribute back to the redis code base, including core redis developers. If you actually look at the redis code base the majority of it was written by people who never worked for redis.
Thats a really big deal, how did they legally managed to do the license change? I was under the impression that only works if the original owner is the doing most work
Why do people even bother with cloud? I’ve a couple of apps doing a few million a day. I am using Hetzner and before that used DigitalOcean. Mind you, for close to a decade. People are unnecessarily complicating stuff, and these clouds can go very expensive very quickly. Recently, I came across a company and they were spending $20k a month on GCP. I am like, are you kidding me, $20K for the kind of stuff you do??? It…
We are having this dilemma right now. I’m not involved in devops, but it’s quite annoying on how slow everything related to our backend is. I think we spend around 5k in aws, and I’m pretty sure we could be much more performant for a fraction of that price. The problem is, who is going to setup everything? Hiring someone would for sure cost more than 5k