Excuse me, do we need all that complexity? Telling that it is "hard" is justifiable?
It is naive to assume people bashing AWS are uncapable to running things better, cheaper, faster, across many other vendors, on-prem, colocation or what not.
> Outrage is the easy response.
That is what made AWS get the marketshare it has now in the first place, the easy responses.
The main selling point of AWS in the beginning was "how easy is to sping a virtual machine". After basically every layman started recommending AWS and we flocked there, AWS started making things more complex than it should. Was that to make harder to get out of it? IDK.
> Empathy and learning is the valuable one.
When you run your infrastructure and something fails and you are not transparent, your users will bash you, independently who you are.
And that was another "easy response" used to drive companies towards AWS. We developers were echoing that "having a infrastructure team or person is not necessary", etc.
Now we are stuck in this learned helplessness where every outage is a complete disaster in terms of transparency, multiple services failing, even for multi-region and multi-az customers, we saying "this service here is also not working" and AWS simple states that service was fine, not affected, up and running.
If it was a sysadmin doing that, people will be asking for his/her neck with pitchforks.
> AWS started making things more complex than it should
I don’t think this is fair for a couple reasons:
1. AWS would have had to scale regardless just because of the number of customers. Even without adding features. This means many data centers, complex virtual networking, internal networks, etc. These are solving very real problems that happen when you have millions of virtual servers.
2. AWS hosts many large, complex systems like Netflix. Companies like Netflix are going to require more advanced features out of AWS, and this will result in more features being added. While this is added complexity, it’s also solving a customer problem.
My point is that complexity is inherent to the benefits of the platform.
It is naive to assume people bashing AWS are uncapable to running things better, cheaper, faster, across many other vendors, on-prem, colocation or what not.
> Outrage is the easy response.
That is what made AWS get the marketshare it has now in the first place, the easy responses.
The main selling point of AWS in the beginning was "how easy is to sping a virtual machine". After basically every layman started recommending AWS and we flocked there, AWS started making things more complex than it should. Was that to make harder to get out of it? IDK.
> Empathy and learning is the valuable one.
When you run your infrastructure and something fails and you are not transparent, your users will bash you, independently who you are.
And that was another "easy response" used to drive companies towards AWS. We developers were echoing that "having a infrastructure team or person is not necessary", etc.
Now we are stuck in this learned helplessness where every outage is a complete disaster in terms of transparency, multiple services failing, even for multi-region and multi-az customers, we saying "this service here is also not working" and AWS simple states that service was fine, not affected, up and running.
If it was a sysadmin doing that, people will be asking for his/her neck with pitchforks.