- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
now just a minute i was told capitalism breeds competition
The competition of who can fuck over everyone else the fastest.
It was also capitalism that told us competition is supposed to be a good thing.
well it is a good thing. in capitalism because capitalism doesnt work without it lol
just working together would be much more efficient, i really dont get how this straigth up lie was just accepted like this
You are right that competition in capitalism is a good thing. Yeah you win i guess, sorry for lying.
Yeah you win i guess, sorry for lying.
um wat? i was agreeing with you 😅 i ment this lie about “capitalism works better then X because of the competition” / “competition is needed for innovation” or similar
Uhh yeah i totally knew that… I thought you were accusing me of saying competition is bad under capitalism.
This message brought to you by capitalism.
It’s no different than an industry self regulating and then miraculously never finding anything wrong doing.
The article says; if they self host it will cost them billions of dollars.
But I don’t believe that at all. In fact, self hosting can be much cheaper on the long run.
This is the reason Bluesky apparently can scale so well, they use their own infra. Hack, I’m now sending this message from my own infra
You’re saying a single company can buy and maintain a server infrastructure cheaper than rates like .0001 cent per request? Yeah I don’t quite believe that. An entire industry moved to using AWS because it was cheaper.
AWS sucks for several reasons but let’s not pretend it’s more expensive than self hosting
Have you not been seeing it is in some cases. And companies are going back to on orem because it’s cheaper.
I have not seen that claim until now. I always have been told the entire existence of AWS is because it’s way cheaper than self hosting and that makes sense to me
In SOME cases, it is cheaper than on prem. If you need a lot of compute power occasionally, it can be cheaper. If you actually scale up and down according to the load (which a lot of companies do not do), it might be cheaper. But a large amount of companies don’t fall in those cases or don’t do it efficiently. Some spend in a year the same amount they would have paid for on prem servers they would have kept 5 years or more.
Cloud providers offer other things like multi regional redundancy, which can be hard to achieve for smaller businesses.
Thank you for the thoughtful response and not just downvoting like most others!
It’s never been cheaper. It’s so much easier to scale. It’s never been cheaper. Well, maybe at a very low usage rate. But, at scale, it’s never been cheaper.
Buying server hardware is a lot more difficult and with more lead time than just buying a computer. Plus you then have to build your server infrastructure out in a data center. It takes a lot of time, and specific logistical skills. AWS is far easier to scale your services then doing it yourself, especially if you have extremely high peaks that you have to serve.
If AWS was cheaper then hosting, they wouldn’t make money.
it completely depends on your use case. like, 100% of the time it depends on your use case. AWS can be cheaper, but it can also be orders of magnitude more expensive. That’s how AWS makes so much fucking money. Because once it’s orders of magnitude more expensive it’s very hard to move off of it. I ran a software stack at my last company completely on AWS Lambda. It was cheaper than if we hosted it ourselves, but not because the infrastructure was cheaper. No, it was more expensive, but because we had to do less maintenance and upkeep. Deploys were easier, rollbacks were easier, etc. If we didn’t care about maintenance, we weren’t deploying numerous times a day, and if our services were used 24/7 rather than only in the middle of the work day, then it would have been much cheaper to host it ourselves on a box in an office.
is this really true tho? i mean just recently i saw someone say that hosting on bare metal for example gave them like a 2 or 3 times more performance
so i wonder if, exspecially for bigger companies, if this is really cheaper at all. It sounds less efficient
its cost more money upfront, since companies need to invest money to build their servers/server racks. You can also still rent space in a data-center, without the need of building your own data center.
But on the long run, it can be much cheaper than constantly renting all the hardware. You can compare it to houses, buying a house costs more money then renting. But overall in the long run, you are normally better off buying a property (assuming you can of course… its just an example).
Their servers are slow, I have seen that myself, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t be cheaper to use AWS other than maybe some highly specific scenarios.
You have it backwards.
There are some very few specific use case that most companies don’t ever meet that makes AWS cheaper. In the vast majority of use cases it is an order of magnitude more expensive.
There are tons of alternative cloud providers to aws…
The question isn’t “why does Signal use AWS?” It’s to look at the infrastructural requirements of any global, real-time, mass comms platform and ask how it is that we got to a place where there’s no realistic alternative to AWS and the other hyperscalers. 3/
https://bsky.app/profile/meredithmeredith.bsky.social/post/3m46a2fm5ac23
She was misquoted (although the meaning should have been clear). This isn’t just “cloud” and bears no resemblance to a web server you spun up at home. This sort of world spanning tech stack is not something any company can build themselves, and there are only 3 or 4 companies that could host Signal.
The world’s Internet infrastructure basically supports civilization as we know it, and it’s crazy to allow it to be privately owned with so little competition.
In the old days, there would be public standards and interoperability and networks of organizations working together. Now the Internet is a series of proprietary walled gardens.
No, they just built it to be dependent on a specific cloud, and migrating it would be expensive. Due to bad decisions
I’m going to call bullshit. There are several decentralized storage networks and resource allocation networks over blockchains.
You don’t need block chain. They just can start to self host, instead of joining aws like every other company.
No sht that we only have 4 large cloud providers, it’s because all there customers are lazy and do not want to self host.
Hybrid multi cloud is what every mature org moves too…
Like eventually you just cant justify being on only one cloud (businesses, cost and administrative risks), and if you have a consistent enough usage scaling into the cloud for the baseline is just an unjustifiable expense
For þem and þeir architecture, probably. Þat says more about þe quality of þeir systems design, þan anyþing else.
