umur

As a side note, and to pg's point, Microsoft did make some very smart Web 2.0 acquisitions from Silicon Valley in the years since --most notably LinkedIn and Github--, and let them run relatively independently.

> So if they wanted to be a contender again, this is how they could do it: Buy all the good "Web 2.0" startups. They could get substantially all of them for less than they'd have to pay for Facebook.

>Put them all in a building in Silicon Valley, surrounded by lead shielding to protect them from any contact with Redmond.

Thank you Paolo — for what was an excellent post, and also for this helpful update!

Our naming intent is for a "ubiquitous" cloud, one that can run anywhere -- no affliations! :)

Ubicloud cofounder here, thanks for the question!

You can think of Ubicloud as software that takes bare metal servers as its input, and provides VMs and other cloud infrastructure services as its output. You can self-host Ubicloud on your own hardware, or use it as a managed service.

Comments below are on point: Compared to OpenStack, Ubicloud is simpler, comes with a managed service that you can use in minutes (vs days/weeks), and provides more services such as managed databases.

Compared to Kubernetes, Ubicloud covers layers both above and below Kubernetes. For example, running K8s on AWS/Azure/GCP depends on having VMs where the pods can run on. Similarly, running a managed database service on K8s requires much more than the basic K8s service itself.

Put differently, all major cloud providers have proprietary software similar in purpose to Ubicloud, which they use to provide their core cloud services. Using AWS as an example, services like EC2, RDS for managed Postgres, or EKS for managed Kubernetes, all run on this type of software. Ubicloud makes this software open source, and allows it to run anywhere--not just on AWS data centers.

Much appreciate the nits! I've made a few minor tweaks right now, we will do a more complete revision later on.

Thank you for your feedback! I've just made several edits to the text for clarity; will also fix UX bugs and do bigger a update in the upcoming weeks.

thank you and that's correct, just updated the docs as well.

Ubicloud cofounder here.

Thanks and yes, the magnitude of it was surprising to us, and that for a common use-case. The default runners you get for Github Actions if you are compiling ARM code is x86, which uses qemu emulation. That default is 10x slower vs native ARM.

Combined also with 10x higher prices, a 100x price-perf gain vs the default was unusual.

Happy to hear your suggestions, of course, will ping you through your HN profile

That’s great to hear, thank you! Please feel free to email us if you have questions. For pricing, the first link is for VMs, and the second is for managed database instances, which also have 5x more disk. You’re right in that we should aggregate and better present our pricing.

Thank you! Quick notes: - Resizing instances after provisioning is a manual operation for now. We'd use the same backup machinery that exists to automate it; until then you could do it manually or we're happy to help through a support request.

- Yes, you can create multiple databases per instance.

- We don't support pgvector yet; initial extensions we have are those in contrib, with more to come.

- Going through a VM to fetch the data from/send data to file store is the most common

- We take backups automatically, with point-in-time-recovery available to the minute. We also allow you to "fork" a database using a similar approach: i.e. your database remains intact; you just add a new database to it from a past point in time (typically useful for dev, test and/or analytics)

Congrats Mitchell! Thanks for all your great work, and best of luck for what's ahead.