> ...however if that glue actually works I might as well do that with 20 sht tier providers and let the redundancy cover gloss over it. No competitive advantage for cloud providers - and each of the cloud's various competitive advantages are by definition not hybrid-able easily.
YES! I might be the only one that wants this, but this is the future I want[0][1][2]. As technology makes it easier and easier to run a cloud compute/service provider, more competition will improve the offerings.
I don't know what "shit tier providers" you're referring to, but I'm not convinced of the additional value AWS is delivering when running certain services (I'm thinking postgres) which are already pretty excellent by themselves. In the end you need to hire for AWS expertise (and spend time boning up anyway/reading docs when things go wrong), and for 90% of apps 1 mid-tier postgres instance (not even a highly-available) instance is all you need until you really get traction and can afford to hire someone to look after it. I think the future is going to see the bifurcation of management (making sure it's up/efficient) and hosting (providing hardware), and plummeting prices for both as more people enter the market.
The super perplexing thing is that cloud providers jumped on the kubernetes bandwagon so quickly and this is what made this commoditization possible. Pessimistically speaking, this means either they're either about to butcher the cross-cloud usability of kubernetes (i.e. drift between EKS,AKS,etc) or kubernetes was a wolf in sheep's clothing from the start.
I've been cautiously watching the Service Catalog[3] feature in Kubernetes because I think it's one of the places where vendors are exerting the most control to see how it goes -- I've brought it up before, but the "Service Catalog" is basically identical to the user Operator (Controller + Custom Resource Definition) pattern, but for some reason it's being treated as different...
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19170073
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18121150
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18015057
[3]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/servic...
YES! I might be the only one that wants this, but this is the future I want[0][1][2]. As technology makes it easier and easier to run a cloud compute/service provider, more competition will improve the offerings.
I don't know what "shit tier providers" you're referring to, but I'm not convinced of the additional value AWS is delivering when running certain services (I'm thinking postgres) which are already pretty excellent by themselves. In the end you need to hire for AWS expertise (and spend time boning up anyway/reading docs when things go wrong), and for 90% of apps 1 mid-tier postgres instance (not even a highly-available) instance is all you need until you really get traction and can afford to hire someone to look after it. I think the future is going to see the bifurcation of management (making sure it's up/efficient) and hosting (providing hardware), and plummeting prices for both as more people enter the market.
The super perplexing thing is that cloud providers jumped on the kubernetes bandwagon so quickly and this is what made this commoditization possible. Pessimistically speaking, this means either they're either about to butcher the cross-cloud usability of kubernetes (i.e. drift between EKS,AKS,etc) or kubernetes was a wolf in sheep's clothing from the start.
I've been cautiously watching the Service Catalog[3] feature in Kubernetes because I think it's one of the places where vendors are exerting the most control to see how it goes -- I've brought it up before, but the "Service Catalog" is basically identical to the user Operator (Controller + Custom Resource Definition) pattern, but for some reason it's being treated as different...
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19170073
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18121150
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18015057
[3]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/extend-kubernetes/servic...