|
|
|
|
|
by nkmnz
569 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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.