undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnkmnz1y ago0 comments

this assumes there are no devops/consulting cost to setup something with AWS. My experience is that "the aws way of doing XYZ" is almost as complicated as doing it the non-AWS-way. On top of that: the non-AWS-way is much more portable across hosting providers, so you decrease your business risks considerably.

0 comments

adamcharnock1y ago

I wholeheartedly agree, I'm trying to be generous as I know I have a bias here.

I think the AWS way made clear sense in the days before the current generation of tooling existed, when we were SSH-ing into our snowflake servers (for example). But now we have tools like Kubernetes/Nomad/OpenShift/etc/etc, the logic just doesn't seem to add up any more.

The main argument against it is generally of the form, "Yes, but we don't want to hire for non-cloud/bare-metal". Which is why I think a consultancy provides a good middle ground here – trading off cost savings against business factors.

nkmnzOP1y ago

Can you recommend any resources on how to approach the topic for a startup? Most startups have very similar needs, but every single "batteries included" solution that I've encountered so far explicitly excluded infrastructure and DevOps – either because it's out of scope for the creators, or because that's what they monetize (e.g. supabase).

2 more replies

marcosdumay1y ago

Well, it at least assumes the cost to setup the AWS way is sunken. What is a given for anybody that may hire them.

But if you are starting from scratch instead of looking for someone to help you migrate, then yeah, the AWS way has probably higher setup costs than making it portable.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse