[adamcharnock]

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.

[nkmnz]

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).

[lostmsu]

I don't have practical experience in that, but .NET Aspire looks like the thing you might want (and it has some support of non-.NET on both backend and frontend).

Basically the idea is that you define your infrastructure in a rather short .NET script (e.g. for example postgres + backend + frontend + auth service) and the tooling then lets you either download all the components and launch the whole thing locally, or generate a script of some kind to deploy it to an infrastructure provider (type of script depends on provider). And it provides extensive logging, monitoring, tracing etc out of the box for the majority of the included components with API endpoints and dashboards.

[adamcharnock]

How about we have a chat? I think it is hard for startups to justify implementing this infrastructure from scratch because that is a lot of time & skills that are really best focussed elsewhere.

Ping me an email (see bio), always happy to chat.