... skills issue. LOL. Good luck to making these tests easier on GCP / Azure. Or try to set up equivalent HW server without pulling your hair. Complexity is large part of why we, IT people, are paid those money.
(Should've created *new AWS account* for those tests. AWS's automated security algorithms almost certainly flagged this abnormal behavior as a "suspected security breach" to protect the (long time dormant) user from potentially devastating unauthorized charges)
I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
521–530 of 684 posts
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#522Earlier 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…
> It's weird to me that the Hacker News community doesn't think that sort of competition is good.
Negative externalities. The company makes money using a free resource and disincentivises future development.
I'm sure you can see why killing the most popular business model for open source companies is bad for the ecosystem, right?
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
"all that follows is your own fault" does blame the victim. The abuse is definitely NOT the victim's fault, it's 100% the fault of the abuser. (Most of the time; I won't say there are never mutually-abusive relationships, but most of the time it's one way). Thing about abusive relationships is, though, many (I would go so far as to say "most" but I'm no expert on the numbers) people in one have lots of options to wal…
> The abuse is definitely NOT the victim's fault, it's 100% the fault of the abuser. At some stage, (regardless of law or what’s right), standing in a pedestrian-crossing on a busy thoroughfare is foolish. Keep hanging out in the crosswalk hoping Bezos will stop for you, if you want, but don’t chastise those warning others to move.
Did you see the P.S. I edited in? I'm not taking objection to "hey, you should move" (or "hey, you probably shouldn't park there if you don't want your car windows smahsed"). It's the specific "it's your fault" phrasing I'm objecting to. It would have been better phrased as "remember, everything that happens afterwards is something you could have avoided". The line can be fuzzy sometimes, and I've definitely seen people throwing around accusations of victim-blaming where such accusations are unwarranted (someone saying "hey, if you're a woman, you'd be wise not to hang out in such-and-such a neighborhood alone after dark" is definitely trying to give advice, not victim-blame, but I've seen something phrased in nearly exactly those terms — I don't recall them verbatim — get unfairly accused of victim-blaming). So I agree with you in many cases. This specific one, though, was phrased as "it's your fault" and I can't agree with that phrasing. It's still the abuser's fault, even if the victim didn't take action to get out of the situation.
But yes, people in abusive relationships (whether in their personal or professional lives) should be advised to get out of there, and should be helped to do so as best as you can. No qualms with that.
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#524I 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…
IAM is unnecessarily bad. I recently had to set a trivial policy, and was doing it correctly. The console kept warning me that I was giving root AWS access to my external application because they want people to use the locked in AWS path, and I was running off cloud. On top of that, they break copy paste on the web console, so you can’t just ctrl-c ctrl-v and then ask Claude to explain their WTF-ery. Instead, you hav…
You could probably open the developer tools, find the console elements and extract the data from there to get around copy/paste limitations. I’m not familiar with the AWS console but let’s say it’s an input, select it in the dev tools and then in the dev tools console do $0.value
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#525Earlier 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…
There are passive open source projects done by people out of love in their spare time over the years and then there are active open source projects done by people with the idea of executing in the open space and building a community around it. The later has business incentives tied around it and I guess the challenge is that there isnt a clear structure which leads to this situation.
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> It's weird to me that the Hacker News community doesn't think that sort of competition is good. Negative externalities. The company makes money using a free resource and disincentivises future development. I'm sure you can see why killing the most popular business model for open source companies is bad for the ecosystem, right?
I can't? I mean, if Amazon does commercial version of Elastic better than Elastic themselves then so be it. I don't see how one company is entitled to turn an open source project into business and the other is not.
I do see issues with monopolies pushing inferior products onto users. But that would be a completely different issue, nothing to do with open source.
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#527[flagged]
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"They have a problem with their business model, then" Ok, then don't be surprised when the most popular license becomes the FairSource license. Under this license, you have no rights, no ability to fork and no ability to modify, no ability to legally change the software in any way, but hey...you can see the source right. I feel like you don't understand the tragedy of the commons somehow.
That's a huge misrepresentation of fair source licenses. They prevent competing with the original vendor, but still try to retain Right to Repair as much as possible, for example:
> The Fair Core License, or FCL, is a mostly-permissive non-compete Fair Source license that eventually transitions to Open Source after 2 years.
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that's because you have a service principle in your IAM trust relationship that allowed us access That’s why it’s so complicated!!! I don’t understand how I should evaluate trust for your internal EBS org versus your internal ALB org. I kinda just expect it to be all “AWS” trust. And it’s all garbage anyway. There’s no way I can prevent the hypothetically untrustworthy EBS team from surreptitiously adding charges t…
3 things to untangle here. 1. It's about trust and auditability, while you may not want or need it, there are a lot of customer that are either interested or legally obligated to know who have accessed certain data. 2. It's about dogfooding - how would you trust an identity and access system when the company does not even use it internally? 3. In general, there are quick buttons and template to do it if you don't wan…
That's all fine and good, but I still don't know how much trust the EBS team versus the ALB team.
And I don't think you do either.
Re: I returned to AWS and was reminded why I left
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of those projects are not companies selling software. They're effectively public infrastructure projects, often governed by non-profit foundations or community institutions. Also, many of them predate hyperscalers and developed governance/economic structures that make them harder for AWS to capture or destabilize, whereas AWS free-riding a vendor-controlled project can destroy the economic engine sustaining the…
Indeed! I just don't think it's on Amazon to fix those institutional and economic realities when they decide to host a project that people find useful.
It's on Amazon to consider the second-order effects of their actions. They may in some cases be killing the golden goose.