Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by zbentley 551 days ago
For purposes of this discussion, isn't AWS just a very large hosting provider?

I.e. most hosting providers give you the option for virtual or dedicated hardware. So does Amazon (metal instances).

Like, "cloud" was always an ill-defined term, but in the case of "how do I provision full servers" I think there's no qualitative difference between Amazon and other hosting providers. Quantitative, sure.
2 comments
noprocrasted 551 days ago
> Amazon (metal instances)

But you still get nickel & dimed and pay insane costs, including on bandwidth (which is free in most conventional hosting providers, and overages are 90x cheaper than AWS' costs).

link
irunmyownemail 551 days ago
Qualitatively, AWS is greedy and nickle and dime you to death. Their Route53 service doesn't even have all the standard DNS options I need and I can get everywhere else or even on my own running bind9. I do not use IPv6 for several reasons, when AWS decided charge for IPv4, I went looking elsewhere to get my VM's.

I can't even imagine how much the US Federal Government is charging American taxpayers to pay AWS for hosting there, it has to be astronomical.

link
everfrustrated 551 days ago
Out of curiosity, which DNS record types do you need that Route53 doesn't support?
link