> > I do disagree, if I understood the argument right. If the argument is > 'cloud makes no business sense to anyone'. >
That wasn't the argument I intended to make, but I see how it could have been interpreted that way. There are absolutely a ton of use cases where cloud usage makes absolute sense, from both business and technical perspectives. I do not agree that 'nobody should be using cloud providers'. There is a place for its use, and it can be very beneficial when used strategically and thoughtfully. However, as we see every time a major cloud provider has an outage, lots of people don't use it strategically or thoughtfully, and that's really my point. Randy said it most succinctly I think. Cloud providers don't reduce your risk, they just have different risks to consider. On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 2:32 AM Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 09:16, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: > > > > Saving 12 months of opex $ sounds great, except when you lose 18 > > > months of opex $ in 2 days completely outside of your ability to > control. > > > > I don't disagree. > > > > What this does, though, is democratize access into the industry. For a > > simple business model that is serving a small community with a handful > > of eyeballs, not trying to grow forever but put food on the table, it's > > somewhere to start. > > I do disagree, if I understood the argument right. If the argument is > 'cloud makes no business sense to anyone'. > > Doing the 1st server properly costs several million euros a year, > since you need competent 24/7 staffing, with sick leaves, holidays (in > 1st world countries where this is a thing) and attrition taken into > account. Staff who can do infra, compute, storage, networking (that's > 4 separate teams usually, each needing overhead for 24/7) who are > comfortable with working nights. > > This argument 'no one should be using x, x is a fad' happens when > every new technology appears, literally people object to using paper > and pen, as it's too convenient for writing thereby causing quality of > writing to decrease compared to stone tablets. Followed by the > evilness of books, newspapers, radio, tv, internet and so forth. > And always these fringe opinions that something is outright bad/good > gives away to more nuanced views. > > I wonder if these people who object to using the cloud, object to > using 3rd party data centres outright? Or accept that you don't have > to build the physical premises where you put the compute, or do you > have to own that too? If you don't have to own that, why not? Since it > would seem a difficult position to at same time argue you can't use > cloud because of lack of control, but you can use 3rd party data > centres, now you're still lacking control on many types of outages. > > If we need to own everything, where does it end? What can we get from > 3rd parties? NAND gate? Or can we at least assume we don't have to > build hydrogen atoms? That we get hydrogen atoms from elsewhere and > start from that? Why is it that always the objection is something > contemporary but the rest of the stack is fine to be provided by a 3rd > party? If you believe you're living in a special period of time, where > there is fundamental change to this, your position is statistically > weak. > > > -- > ++ytti >
