How do they do this jedi mind trick?
I suspect the team that manages it was OKR-ed into using AJAX but come from a classic ASP background, so don't understand what all this "single page app" fad is all about and hope it blows over one day
It amazes me a company that makes that much money has such a crappy client.
You'd think a company with 1.5m employees could find half a dozen decent front end developers, but apparently not
GCP SDK docs must be mentioned separately as it's a bizarre auto-generated nonsense. Have you seen them? How can you even say that GCP docs are good after that?
wdym? As far as I see, it's either CLI or Terraform. GCP SDK is complete garbage, at least for Python compared to AWS boto3. I have personally made web UI for AWS CLI man pages as a fun project and can index everything myself if needed. Googling works fine. If you are not happy with it then ChatGPT is to the rescue. I honestly do not see any problem at all.
We started using Azure Container Apps (ACA) and it seems simple enough.
Create ACA, point to GitHub repo, it runs.
Push an update to GitHub and it redeploys.
I don't have a ton of Azure or cloud experience but I run an Unraid server locally which has a decent Docker gui.
Getting a docker container running in Azure is so complicated. I gave up after an hour of poking around.
AWS has "fun" features like the ability to just lose track of some resource and still be billed for it. It's in here... somewhere. Not sure which region or account. I'll find it one day.
GCP is made by Google, also known as children that forgot to take their ADHD medication. Any minute now they'll just casually announce that they're cancelling the cloud because they're bored of it.
Azure is the only one I've seen with a sane management interface, where you can actually see everything everywhere all at once. Search, filter, query-across-resources, etc... all work reasonably well.
How can you even compare it to AWS is a mystery to me. There are pages showing all your resources, not sure why you think it's a problem. Could be a problem from long time ago?
[0] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-gb/products/container-apps
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/container-instances/... is the one I was going to plug, because coming from a kubernetes background it seems to damn near be the PodSpec and thus both expresses a lot of my needs and also is very familiar https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/templates/microsoft....
Your link does seem to be a lot more "container, plus all the surrounding stuff" in line with the "apps" part, whereas mine more closely matches my actual experience of what you said: container, go
The "what the fucking hell is wrong with you people?" part is that their naming is just all over the place, and changes constantly, and is almost designed to be misleading in any sane conversation. I quite literally couldn't have guessed whether Container Apps was a prior name of Container Instances, a super set of it, subset, other? And one will observe that while I said Container Instances, and the URL says Container Instances, the ARM is Container Groups. Are they the same? different? old? who fucking knows. It's horrific
I’ve had technicians at both GCP and Azure debug code and spend hours on developing services.
Almost every time Google pulled in a specialist engineer working on a service/product we had issues with it was very very clear the engineer had no desire to be on that call or to help us. In other words they'd get no benefit from helping us and it was taking away from things that would help their career at Google. Sometimes they didn't even show up to the first call and only did to the second after an escalation up the management chain.
They often provide that consulting for free, and we know their biases. There's nothing hidden about the fact that they will push us to use AWS services.
On the other hand, they will also help us optimize those services and save money that is directly measurable.
GCP might have a better API and better "naming" of their services, but the breadth of AWS services, the incorporation of IAM across their services, governance and automation all makes it worth while.
Cloud has come a long way from "it's so easy to spin up a VM/container/lambda".
Our account team don't even do that. We use a lot of AWS anyway and they know it, so they're happy to help with competitor offerings and integrating with our existing stack. Their main push on us has been to not waste money.
AWS wants happy customers to stick around for a long time, not one month of goosed income
If you still decided to move away, and want to take data with you, yeah... there is a cost. Heck there is a cost to delete the data you have with them (like S3 content).
Its a good way to do business.
And never did I miss something in GCP that I could find in AWS. Not sure the breadth is adding much compared to a simpler product suite in GCP.
Pub/Sub - Kinesis
Cloud CDN - CloudFront
Cloud Domains - Route 53
...
One, and you often times only need one.
Also, I don't think trying to emulate AWS's support and consistent API makes sense as a strategy for other cloud providers. They will never beat AWS at their own game, it is light years ahead. If cloud providers want to survive they need to fill a different niche and try different things.
Idk why you don't see AWS as a utility providing building blocks.
> I don't think trying to emulate AWS's support and consistent API makes sense as a strategy for other cloud providers.
Those are such essential things. It's very hard to imagine prioritising something else and succeeding in anything.
Google Cloud Run - Lambda
Sure I get the reference to the underlying algebraic representation of coding but come on, Lambda tells us nothing of what it does.
Products (not brands, products) should be named in a way that means something to the customer afaic.
> Google Cloud Run - Lambda
ECS is the AWS equivalent of Cloud Run. GCP Cloud Functions are the equivalent of AWS Lambda.
ECS / Cloud Run = managed container service that autoscales
Lambda / Cloud Functions = serverless functions as a service
The only weird part I experienced with AWS is their SNS API. Maybe due to legacy reasons, but what a bizarre mess when you try doing it cross-account. This one is odd.
I have been trying GCP for a while and DevX was horrible. The only part that more-or-less works is CLI but the naming there is inconsistent and not as well-done as in AWS. But it's relative and subjective, so I guess someone likes it. I have experienced GCP official guides that broken, untested or utterly braindead hello-world-useless. And also they are numerous and spread so it takes time to find anything decent.
No dark mode is an extra punch. Seriously. Tried to make it myself with an extension but their page is Angular hell of millions embedded divs. No thank you.
And since you mentioned Cloud Run -- it takes 3 seconds to deploy a Lambda version in AWS and a minute or more for GCP Could Function.
I also worked at a smaller company using GCP. GCP refused to do a small quota increase (which AWS just does via a web form) unless I got on a call with my sales representative and listened to a 30 minute upsell pitch.
As being on a number of those calls, its just a bunch of crap where they talk like a scripted bot reading from corporate buzzword bingo card over a slideshow. Their real intention is two fold. To sell you even more AWS complexity/services, and to provide "value" to their person of contact (which is person working in your company).
We're paying north of 500K per year in AWS support (which is a highway robbery), and in return you get a "team" of people supposedly dedicated to you, which sounds good in theory but you get a labirinth of irresponsiblity, stalling and frustration in reality.
So even when you want to reach out to that team you have to first to through L1 support which I'm sure will be replaced by bots soon (and no value will be lost) which is useful in 1 out of 10 cases. Then if you're not satisfied with L1's answer(s), then you try to escalate to your "dedicated" support team, then they schedule a call in three days time, or if that is around Friday, that means Monday etc.
Their goal is to stall so you figure and fix stuff on your own so they shield their own better quality teams. No wonder our top engineers just left all AWS communication and in cases where unavoidable they delegate this to junior people who still think they are getting something in return.
I am so tired of the support team having all the real metrics, especially in io and throttling, and not surfacing it to us somehow.
And cadence is really an opportunity for them to sell to you, the parent is completely right.
In my experience all questions I've had for AWS were: 1. Their bugs, which won't be fixed in near future anyway. 2. Their transient failures, that will be fixed anyway soon.
So there's zero value in ever contacting AWS support.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but I think google cloud is amazing compared to AWS. I use google cloud run and it works like a dream. I have never found an easier way to get a docker container running in the cloud. The services all have sensible names, there are fewer more important services compared to the mess of AWS services, and the UI is more intuitive. The only downside I have found is the lack of community resulting in fewer tutorials, difficulty finding experienced hires, and fewer third party tools. I recommend trying it. I'd love to get the user base to an even dozen.
The reasoning the author cites is that AWS has more responsive customer service and maybe I am missing out but it would never even occur to me to speak to someone from a cloud provider. They mention having "regular cadence meetings with our AWS account manager" and I am not sure what could be discussed. I must be doing simper stuff.