If you didn't see this was a bad idea 10 years ago, time to wake up.
I saw it as a bad idea from the very beginning. I have never been tempted by Cloud anything.
But a professional application to be cloud and cloud only and need to call home every week or so to ? No thanks.
Gives me more control and I'm not at the mercy of anyone when it comes to things like repairs or improvements etc nor do I need to worry about being evicted for any reason. (ex: they want to tear it down)
Uninstalled Fusion 360. Back to FreeCAD.
If you think this is all bad consider someone like Amazon. You build your product on their equipment with their services. There is no escape the moment you pull that first non IaaS component in.
I know someone who tried to port their stuff away from just S3 due to escalating costs. Not as easy as it looks. Things like Redshift are even worse.
I always buy full licenses. I just don't feel comfortable to have essentially my money controlled by someone else, and something bas simple as a network outage bricks my software.
Note that you could also be screwed with full licenses if the software uses some kind of online activation. If a regular check is required by your particular software, and the server gets permanently unaccessible, you could get eventually "kicked out".
If you didn't see this was a bad idea 10 years ago, time to wake up.I saw it as a bad idea from the very beginning. I have never been tempted by Cloud anything.
I know someone who tried to port their stuff away from just S3 due to escalating costs. Not as easy as it looks. Things like Redshift are even worse.
Yep -some services will be harder than others, and costs will vary. I could take your exact sentence and replace S3 with Oracle or IBM Message Broker or Websphere or DB2 or an AS/400 or Microsoft Exchange, and it would be just as true.
The point is that right now there are plenty of similar enough cloud services out there, and also on premise options. If the decision is made to shift either onto a cloud service, or off, then consideration to the costs and practicalities should be given.
If you didn't see this was a bad idea 10 years ago, time to wake up.I saw it as a bad idea from the very beginning. I have never been tempted by Cloud anything.
Welcome to EEVBLOG Forums, a Cloud-based service.
Yep -some services will be harder than others, and costs will vary. I could take your exact sentence and replace S3 with Oracle or IBM Message Broker or Websphere or DB2 or an AS/400 or Microsoft Exchange, and it would be just as true.
The point is that right now there are plenty of similar enough cloud services out there, and also on premise options. If the decision is made to shift either onto a cloud service, or off, then consideration to the costs and practicalities should be given.The problem is that the cost of cloud services is often delayed or hidden and you're up to your neck when you finally figure it out. The up front cost of traditional setups is what makes the cloud stuff look interesting.
But a professional application to be cloud and cloud only and need to call home every week or so to ? No thanks.
Btw, even worst, your OS.
For example Windows 10 -> Windows 10 users fume: Microsoft, where's our 'local account' option gone?
Its starting and it seems like Microsoft is testing the ground of acceptance, slowly.
There is no way I will surrender the local admin account, this means only one thing, surrender your ownership, power and control over your own computer.
Its easy to imagine one day, you turned on your computer and suddenly your OS tells you that you are no longer can use your computer, access your files and all are locked, just because a dude which happened to be another country's leader said so.
Unfortunately it seems everything is moving to cloud now and it will get harder and harder to resist. Even things that arn't necessarily cloud based still require you to make an account and have the product tied to some cloud. Game consoles for example are all like that now. Even Gopros and DJI drones and lot of similar products. Pisses me off, there's no technical reason for it to require that. It's just done to track you.
If you didn't see this was a bad idea 10 years ago, time to wake up.I saw it as a bad idea from the very beginning. I have never been tempted by Cloud anything.
Welcome to EEVBLOG Forums, a Cloud-based service.
If you didn't see this was a bad idea 10 years ago, time to wake up.I saw it as a bad idea from the very beginning. I have never been tempted by Cloud anything.
Welcome to EEVBLOG Forums, a Cloud-based service.
Sure, however if the forum closed tomorrow, we can all go about our work and personal lives without a problem. It wouldn't have a "critical" impact on anyone.
Personally, for all things storage/backup/syncing, I use a completely self-hosted solution. Yes, it involves an initial cost in building servers and infrastructure, but even when the internet is out (which in Australia is transient itself thanks to the NBN), I have full and complete access to everything including the movies and TV shows I enjoy watching.
Once I upgrade the memory in one of my servers this weekend, I will be building my own "cloud" solution based on NextCloud so I'll essentially have my own version of Google G-Suite except where I have complete control of the data.
You are - quite literally - handing over your data to an entity that says "Trust me" ... and you have no physical control over that data.
Yep -some services will be harder than others, and costs will vary. I could take your exact sentence and replace S3 with Oracle or IBM Message Broker or Websphere or DB2 or an AS/400 or Microsoft Exchange, and it would be just as true.
The point is that right now there are plenty of similar enough cloud services out there, and also on premise options. If the decision is made to shift either onto a cloud service, or off, then consideration to the costs and practicalities should be given.The problem is that the cost of cloud services is often delayed or hidden and you're up to your neck when you finally figure it out. The up front cost of traditional setups is what makes the cloud stuff look interesting.
I agree people are caught out, and I have been once. But in general the information is there and just requires the effort of calculating it out.
The traditional stuff requires ongoing expenditure, and that is often overlooked too. And local services are more likely to suffer from resource contention.
Have you had to wait for IT to provision a development server? (Yes, months. In one company it needed to be planned a year ahead and even then it was delayed)
Had to wait for AWS to provision a development server? (Yes, at least 5 minutes)
There is no silver bullet. No news to anyone with common sense, but that means cloud services have their place. An unpopular opinion here of course. Maybe its the lead.
Yep -some services will be harder than others, and costs will vary. I could take your exact sentence and replace S3 with Oracle or IBM Message Broker or Websphere or DB2 or an AS/400 or Microsoft Exchange, and it would be just as true.
The point is that right now there are plenty of similar enough cloud services out there, and also on premise options. If the decision is made to shift either onto a cloud service, or off, then consideration to the costs and practicalities should be given.The problem is that the cost of cloud services is often delayed or hidden and you're up to your neck when you finally figure it out. The up front cost of traditional setups is what makes the cloud stuff look interesting.
I agree people are caught out, and I have been once. But in general the information is there and just requires the effort of calculating it out.
The traditional stuff requires ongoing expenditure, and that is often overlooked too. And local services are more likely to suffer from resource contention.
Have you had to wait for IT to provision a development server? (Yes, months. In one company it needed to be planned a year ahead and even then it was delayed)
Had to wait for AWS to provision a development server? (Yes, at least 5 minutes)
There is no silver bullet. No news to anyone with common sense, but that means cloud services have their place. An unpopular opinion here of course. Maybe its the lead.
Ahh the "AWS 5 minute myth", forgetting:
1. Security. Yeah lets just stick an RDP server on an EIP and leave it there for everyone on the Internet.
2. Patching. Yeah lets stick an unpatched AMI we found in the AWS rotten old shit store on our EC2 instance.
3. Availability. Yeah lets stick it in one AZ and watch it disappear one afternoon with all the ephemeral data because we don't understand AWS architecture leading to two days of downtime until the guy who set it all up comes back from holiday in a jungle with no phone reception.
4. Billing. Yeah lets roll out an instance we don't understand the costing of properly and get a nasty shock at the end of the billing cycle.
5. Latency and poor performance. Yeah lets find out the hard way that the thing lags like shit compared to in house hardware which doesn't share the cache and cores with a hacked AWS account running BTC mining.
6. Hidden IO problems. Yeah lets find out the hard way that AWS IOPS is provisioned differently depending on instance and storage size and actually a shitty old no brand SATA SSD in a desktop PC in the office has better IO throughput.
7. Exit. Yeah how do we get this turd out of AWS when the IT team tell us all the above was done wrong?
When you understand these, an AWS 5 minute job turns into a planning process.
The cloud is not a panacea; it's someone else's computer. The usual concerns are all still there just called different names and hiding under marketing.
Also who the fuck runs a dev server in 2019? What do you do on it. Last time I saw that it was a crazy company running their entire development team off an SMB share and using a physical wooden spoon as version control. You couldn't change the code, via windiff, unless you had the spoon.
4. Billing. Yeah lets roll out an instance we don't understand the costing of properly and get a nasty shock at the end of the billing cycle.