We say end IaaS walled gardens

Re:We say end IaaS walled gardens by fleitz on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:07PM (#2060384)

The post (marketing article) says nothing and doesn't identify what vendor they are trashing. As far as I know my 'IaaS' vendor doesn't retain root access. The article makes almost no sense, it starts be trashing iaas, then suggests paas, with out attempting to explain any difference between a 'platform' and 'infrastructure'.

The only thing missing from the article is an affiliate code on the enstratus link. Then it would be fully clear who wrote it and why. Has anyone not selling something ever uttered the phrase 'deploy best of breed solutions'? I think not.

If my current iaas vendor retains root access then I certainly don't want a more 'managed' solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We say end IaaS walled gardens by tobias-ch on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:13PM (#2060408)

Having just read the post I disagree. The post clearly says that most current vendors place significant restrictions on the software and networking layers in their cloud. As someone who has used GoGrid, Rackspace and AWS I can concur with this position. You have a lot less control over your cloud servers than you do over say a dedicated server.

CloudSigma are an IaaS provider who presumably take a different approach.

Overall I think it is a valid point for them to make, especially as it seems that a lot of these restrictions are vendor created.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We say end IaaS walled gardens by fleitz on Sunday January 02, 2011 @12:21PM (#2060428)

I think that most of the problem with IaaS vendors, EC2 in particular is that the IO throughput is absolute shit. I've never had a problem with the software I'm allowed to run on EC2, I've always had a problem with its horrible IO throughput.

There is also a lot of comfort in knowing everyone else is running the same kernel and there will be some difficulty in executing various exploits for the hypervisor.

[ Parent | on HN ]