News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Amazon Premium by packetlag on Thursday December 19, 2019 @11:20AM (#21836248)
This entire article is flawed. The true value add of cloud services (AWS, etc) is that you no longer have to pay for disk jockeys to run a data center. To play games with refreshing hundreds or thousands of pieces of bare metal every 3-4 years [EDIT] is to doom your company to crushing O&M.

If you've never done Datacenter operations, then you're missing a giant point that eliminating an entire department of expensive technical people is a huge gain long term.

Re:The Amazon Premium by eloisant on Thursday December 19, 2019 @11:28AM (#21836330)
He is comparing big tech cloud to smaller hosting companies, like DigitalOcean and OVH, not to "run your own machines in your own data centers."

He is talking about virtual machines.

Re:The Amazon Premium by mlyle on Thursday December 19, 2019 @12:58PM (#21837389)
?? All he's saying is that the cloud market leaders are able to charge more. That is, despite Amazon & Microsoft's & Google's economies of scale, there are much lower cost offerings for ordinary virtual machines and storage, all else being equal.

It has nothing to do with on-prem.

Re:The Amazon Premium by shiftpgdn on Thursday December 19, 2019 @11:30AM (#21836360)
You didn't read the article at all, did you?
Re:The Amazon Premium by packetlag on Thursday December 19, 2019 @11:47AM (#21836539)
Read it enough to consider his primise was flawed and to judge the article as such. Running other "cloud" providers on-prem is not a recommended unless you're in Gov or Financial. [EDIT] Comparing the other cloud providers is totally a valid exercise. Just disagree with the wording of his/her approach
Re:The Amazon Premium by vxNsr on Thursday December 19, 2019 @11:54AM (#21836629)
He's not suggesting doing anything on-prem.
Re:The Amazon Premium by packetlag on Thursday December 19, 2019 @12:00PM (#21836701)
I stand corrected.
Re:The Amazon Premium by ska on Thursday December 19, 2019 @02:17PM (#21838213)
> Read it enough to consider his primise was flawed and to judge the article as such.

I suspect this algorithm needs tweaking, then :)