Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

The parent comment doesn't seem to specify "consumer level" and the loss of businesses having their own infrastructure is equally troubling. Everyone is putting a lot of eggs in a very small number of baskets.

View on HN

I would disagree about the character of the situation. This isn't about people putting eggs in a few baskets, it's that it's more efficient to have centralized chicken coops instead of every family in the world owning their own chickens.

Now, you could play with that analogy further and see some issues as well, but I don't think the issue here is centralized failure; all these data centers/"clouds" are at least good. The Cloud is about businesses focusing on core business and not supporting functions.

[Disclosure, I work on the Google Cloud team, I'm biased]

>focusing on core business and not supporting functions.

Having a devops team with the necessary expertise in Google Cloud or AWS is still a supporting function. You've just traded one skill (managing physical servers) for another (managing proprietary virtual resources).

But hopefully a smaller team, and one that keeps diminishing in size over the years if the trend continues. At least for the same level of service (in availability, security, etc.).

Monocultures are efficient, but not healthy ecosystems in the long term.

Let's look at your metaphor. It's more efficient for the raising of a large overall number of chickens. It's less efficient when I need fast access to a single egg.

Hence we get caching. There's the farms, then the inbound warehouses, then the distribution centers, then the grocer, then our refrigerators by the dozen or dozen and a half. When your local cache is empty of eggs, though, it requires a trip back out to the grocer to get an egg even if you need nothing else that trip. Then you generally have to buy at least half a dozen if not a dozen or more eggs just to get the one you wanted.

If I have my own couple of hens, I can go out into the yard and get an egg. If that's the whole of my fetch list, it's much more efficient for this single egg to have the hens laying right out back.

This whole few baskets metaphor breaks down from another point of view, though, when we consider that by the very nature of using a globally distributed hosted service we're actually eliminating a single basket problem. Yes, there's not much choice among just Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. (That they are the only options is a bit of a strawman, but lets grant this one legs.) However, putting just your own employees in charge of all your infrastructure in just your own datacenter(s) in just PostgreSQL or just MySQL is another single-basket problem. Spreading it out so that someone else gets to manage the hardware and the service and replicating your data widely within that service is from that point of view more baskets. You get more datacenter baskets, more employee baskets, and more software baskets. Using standard SQL means you can move among compliant software later, too, so you're not as tied to those baskets.

Now, back to your coop analogy. What's stopping me from having my application talk to Cloud Spanner and a local database proxy (or a work queue that sits between the app and the DB or whichever) so I can use Google's reliability for transactions and my local cached replicant for query speed when I'm querying older data? Why can't I keep a few eggs around?

Also, why would I be scared of Google or Amazon "having my data"? Why would I put sensitive data into my own database in plaintext and then replicate it among multiple datacenters that way?

> it's that it's more efficient to have centralized chicken coops instead of every family in the world owning their own chickens.

Only if the owner of the chicken-coop has everyone else's best interests in mind. Protip: They don't.

The Cloud isn't about efficiency, it's about data control. Getting people's systems and data into Google/AWS/etc helps with data mining, vendor lock-in, etc. Often times that can be efficient, but also it often isn't.

That's like being sad about the emergence of banks, because everybody's money is being kept in a small number of vaults instead of under each one's mattress.

A good point, but there is an up and downside to everything. The centralization of IT does impact civil liberties and possibly innovation - unlike FOSS and other local systems, aspiring hackers can't tinker with Facebook code and see how it works.

I don't understand how Facebook relates to this, as they don't rent their cloud. Aspiring hackers couldn't tinker with MS Word 2000 code either.

> Aspiring hackers couldn't tinker with MS Word 2000 code either.

They could tinker with the binaries, something many did with game binaries. But your point is well taken; open source is also very valuable to innovation.

Web apps were also very useful for learning JS and browser APIs, before everybody started minimizing and obfuscating it. I learned how to write a rich-text editor just by looking at the code of Hotmail's email editor.

Fair enough, but think of that free and open stack: (layer 1), Ethernet, IP, TCP/UDP, HTTP/SMTP/DNS/etc, HTML/JavaScript. How many cut their teeth on those?

The apps on top, Facebook, Snapchat, etc., are not so open and much of what they do is out of reach from the user.

Also, I meant to add above: People could tinker with data files (e.g., Word docs), configurations, etc. The whole system was local and accessible. You could write local code, such as VB or for Windows, that integrated with those systems.

Creating 3 massive banks that the entire world gets to choose from would be terrible.

Not sure the banks:mattresses and cloud-companies:IT-companies ratios are that different.

That strategy resulted in the Great Depression and later 2008 crises. Damage was so high that country had to be rescued by the federal government. So, banking is a decent example of how such consolidation into private hands can go wrong. Now we just apply that to IT services and data.

That's a ridiculous argument: Banks started being a thing at the end of the Middle Ages. The Great Depression and the Great Recession were not caused by banks emerging, nor by people putting their savings in them.

Not emerging. Just being themselves with all their schemes and an economy dependent on them. A distrust of banks and their schemes at a national level might have reduced their ability to cause those problems. On top of the smaller stuff such as them delaying deposits or withdrawing stuff for bogus reasons.

Putting your savings under the mattress instead of in a bank account wouldn't have prevented the Great Recession. It was caused risky mortgages (debts, not savings) being sold as low risk from bank to bank, and then defaulting.

Putting your savings under the mattress instead of in a bank account wouldn't have prevented the Great Depression either.

The only thing it would have accomplished is making your savings easier to steal.

Storing gold or other valuables instead of Gederal Reserve notes for sale or bartering wouldn't have helped during Great Depression? I havent heard the angle that there was nothing to barter with on top if worthless dollars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com