Live data from Hacker News

AWS services explained in one line each

adayinthelifeof.nl

311–320 of 355 posts

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#311
post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cognito is an identity service, “incognito” means unknown, “cognito” means known. Polly is a joke about how parrots talk, the service does text-to-speech. Athena is a goddess of wisdom, the service is for querying databases. The name is frequently some sort of silly inside joke. Except Fargate, that name means nothing...

I noticed you conveniently left out Redshift. :) What about Snowball, Chime, Sumarian, and Route 53?

Redshift - Oracle’s brand colors are Black and Red. Redshift was built to help Amazon “shift” from using Oracle.

Route 53 - DNS runs on port 53

Chime - when you want to talk about something “let me Chime in”.

Snowball and Sumerian. I got nothing. I didn’t even know what Sumerian was until I looked it up and I thought I had at least heard of most AWS services.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#312
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

go to: https://aws.amazon.com/products/ look up your service. each service has a 1 line description that captures what it does. eg Athena = query data in s3 using sql i don’t really get why people cannot be bothered to learn what a service does and want to pretend they get it from the name. you need to learn the ins and out of the service. the name is the least of your worries.

> i don’t really get why people cannot be bothered to learn what a service does and want to pretend they get it from the name. you need to learn the ins and out of the service. Names matter. When your first experience with a product is an opaque name or description, it usually tells you one of two things: 1. The people behind it are not good communicators. If so, this will likely show up in many of the other product…

After looking up the supposed clear names for OCI. I know what they are, but how does that help me ramp up any faster? It would still take me just as long to ramp up on the equivalent Oracle offerings as it did AWS. Heck, I know the Microsoft development ecosystem and it would still take me a few months to get any sort of proficiency with it where a company would be willing to pay me my asking salary.

I look at the front end web ecosystem and I think it’s all gibberish also and I’ve been using Javascript off and on since it was first in beta for Netscape. But thousands of people take the time to learn it.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what we (mid/small-sized company) with couple dozen machines. It is probably 10% the cost of AWS - but you do need to have at least one person that can handle the servers when/if there are issues. That one person only needs to devote maybe 2-5% of their time to it (once the systems are setup), so it's still a net gain.

Yeah, we use a mix of AWS and self hosted machines. We've had up to 40 servers with this method and devoted similarly trivial amounts of time to it. If you want it to be long term sustainable, you probably want at least 2 people that can handle it, so they can go on vacation. If your goal is to be the next billion dollar company, it probably doesn't matter that much. But if you're self-funding and need a sustainable…

If you want it to be long term sustainable, you probably want at least 2 people that can handle it, so they can go on vacation.

The fully allocated cost of two ops people in my neck of the woods is a little over $300K. That can buy a lot from AWS.

I'm not sure why so many developers seem afraid of hardware

I want to develop. Yes I’ve been around long before AWS was a thing, I had to manage servers, load balancers, and even an elevated “server” room with a SAN with whopping 3TBs of storage back in the early 2000s. But in my old age, my time is valuable. I’ve done the on call thing before where our database server went down in the middle of the night when the night operations crew was working.

I won’t work for a company that is not on a cloud provider and doesn’t have a dedicated ops team.

But, if you are a small company. Why are you spending a lot on AWS? Two EC2 instances behind a load balancer and a hosted database shouldn’t cost you over $500 a month and that includes a decent amount of traffic and miscellaneous other charges. Heck if you are that small, just use Lightsail and when you grow, peer your Lightsail VPC that you probably didn’t know existed to a real VPC.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#314
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if the sarcastic tone is meant to imply AWS is just a rehash of existing tools, but that's obviously not the case. A list of actual competing software/products/services would be pretty useful.

Especially since “EC2” is not just a VM. There are dozen services at least that come under EC2. Also if you start trying to use DynamoDB like you would Mongo, you’re going to be really upset. The use cases, design considerations and performance considerations of DynamoDB compared to Mongo is night and day.

OK substitute VM with OpenStack then.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since “EC2” is not just a VM. There are dozen services at least that come under EC2. Also if you start trying to use DynamoDB like you would Mongo, you’re going to be really upset. The use cases, design considerations and performance considerations of DynamoDB compared to Mongo is night and day.

OK substitute VM with OpenStack then.

I’m really not trying to sound like the “do people still watch TV” guy, but I thought OpenStack fell off the hype curve years ago. Do people still use it.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#316

I made this list for my buddy a while back. It's meant to be more humorous than exactly correct Route 53 - Holy shit! It's NSD WAF - Holy shit! It's modsecurity SES - Holy shit! It's Postfix Inspector - Holy shit! It's OSSEC GuardDuty - Holy shit! It's Snort Data Pipeline - Holy shit! It's Cron and Bash Athena - Holy shit! It's Prestodb Glue - Holy shit! It's Hive Metastore and Spark OpsWorks - Holy shit! It's Chef V…

Where is EKS?

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#317
Someone do this for Oracle and SAP's products list too please. It's a mess of marketing speak and no one has a clue. With SAP you dont even get to see the product in most cases. It's just marketing you have to make your buying decision on.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#318
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prices should have gone down because they've continued to scale up and go into custom cooling/hardware/backbones/etc. Why should that make prices go down? Prices aren't based on cost. They're based on what the market will bear, i.e., what customers will pay. If you think AWS is too costly, you can go find some other solution. If enough customers start doing that that AWS's financial state suffers, AWS will have to…

In a highly competitive market prices tend toward marginal costs plus some small profit margin. Think agriculture or plastic trinkets. The fact their prices and profits have remained high for so long indicates lower competition, likely due to high barriers to entry from competitors and high switching costs for consumers.

> In a highly competitive market prices tend toward marginal costs plus some small profit margin.

Competition in general tends to drive prices down, yes; but competition was not what the post I was responding to claimed "should" make prices go down. That post was claiming prices should go down simply because AWS is investing more resources in building capital as they scale up. That is not true.

> The fact their prices and profits have remained high for so long indicates lower competition, likely due to high barriers to entry from competitors and high switching costs for consumers.

It could, but it could also indicate that this market simply has not reached equilibrium yet. I don't think it's plausible to claim that AWS has no competition in this area, or that barriers to entry are high; there are a number of huge corporations investing a lot in this market, and plenty of smaller players gaining customers by presenting a simpler interface to an AWS back end (e.g., Heroku). Switching costs might be high, not just for AWS but for any provider in this market, simply because there is so little standardization in how infrastructure is specified and controlled. That would lengthen the time to reach a competitive equilibrium in this market.

It is worth remembering that for new technology markets, it can take a long time for a competitive equilibrium to be established. A good example is the automobile market; in the US, for example, it took many decades for car prices to be driven down to marginal cost and for all of the various market players to search out and capitalize on all the possible competitive efficiencies and strategies. Part of that was also that it took decades for the auto market in the US to become saturated, i.e., for most new car sales to be replacing old cars instead of getting a car to someone who had never owned a car before. I don't think the market for AWS-like services is anywhere close to saturated, which means we should not expect a competitive equilibrium; instead, we should expect exactly what we see, large market players trying to capture as much market share as possible during the growth period, just as major automakers did in the US during the growth period in the mid-20th century. Capturing market share in a growth period is a very different game from squeezing out efficiencies in a market near competitive equilibrium.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#319
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i don’t really get why people cannot be bothered to learn what a service does and want to pretend they get it from the name. you need to learn the ins and out of the service. Names matter. When your first experience with a product is an opaque name or description, it usually tells you one of two things: 1. The people behind it are not good communicators. If so, this will likely show up in many of the other product…

After looking up the supposed clear names for OCI. I know what they are, but how does that help me ramp up any faster? It would still take me just as long to ramp up on the equivalent Oracle offerings as it did AWS. Heck, I know the Microsoft development ecosystem and it would still take me a few months to get any sort of proficiency with it where a company would be willing to pay me my asking salary. I look at the f…

> It would still take me just as long to ramp up on the equivalent Oracle offerings

The claim isn't that better names help you ramp up faster. It's that they make it faster to figure out which service you need, or if a service is relevant to you. That said, per the point in my previous post, it's likely that if you can't even clearly describe or name your service, you can't write clear documentation either. I've found that's often the case.

> But thousands of people take the time to learn it.

I don't understand what argument you're making. Is it: Since some subset of people will invest time in learning technology even if it's complicated, therefore it doesn't matter if it's too complicated? If so, you'd have to show that the number of people using it wouldn't increase were it simpler, with clearer names, etc.

That seems unlikely. The whole ethos of many successful companies -- Stripe, Mailchimp come to mind -- is to differentiate themselves by simplifying. It matters to the vast majority of users, developers or otherwise.

Re: AWS services explained in one line each

#320
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After looking up the supposed clear names for OCI. I know what they are, but how does that help me ramp up any faster? It would still take me just as long to ramp up on the equivalent Oracle offerings as it did AWS. Heck, I know the Microsoft development ecosystem and it would still take me a few months to get any sort of proficiency with it where a company would be willing to pay me my asking salary. I look at the f…

> It would still take me just as long to ramp up on the equivalent Oracle offerings The claim isn't that better names help you ramp up faster. It's that they make it faster to figure out which service you need, or if a service is relevant to you. That said, per the point in my previous post, it's likely that if you can't even clearly describe or name your service, you can't write clear documentation either. I've foun…

Since some subset of people will invest time in learning technology even if it's complicated, therefore it doesn't matter if it's too complicated? If so, you'd have to show that the number of people using it wouldn't increase were it simpler, with clearer names, etc.

Well, two points.

1. From a completely selfish standpoint, if people aren’t willing to learn about AWS, it helps me out a lot. I’m able to make more money by taking the time to learn it.

2. There are three credible cloud providers -AWS, Azure, and GCP - and Oracle. Amazon is twice as large as Azure and 5 times larger than GCP. It doesn’t seem to be hurting them.

Just like the obtuse clusterf%%% that is modern front end development doesn’t seem to be hurting the adoption by the $cool_kids.

Post reply on HN