Hacker News Reader

Comment by firebacon | Hacker News Reader

That is a very interesting counterpoint! I guess I agree with you if the choice has to be between {Google, Amazon} or "only Amazon". But I'm advocating for the third choice, where we continue (or go back) to running our own infrastructure.

View on HN

If running your own infrastructure is a strongly desired option, people will do the work to make it easier to host your own k8s cluster. I agree it's not there yet (I'm the primary person for our team running several self-hosted on-prem k8s clusters) but I can see work is already happening to make it easier.

If anyone can comment on "I can see work is already happening to make it easier.", I'd love to hear it.

But I don't want to run my own infrastructure. Infrastructure is very hard to do well and the problems it poses are not necessarily problems that developers want to tackle. It also requires dedicated resources and staff that many smaller orgs have difficulty maintaining.

I'm fairly sure that's the main reason why AWS and GCP are so popular, not some nefarious marketing conspiracy.

MS is also investing heavily in Kubernetes and their offerings on Azure is actually pretty nice. I've run k8s and OpenShift on premise, I've managed 'own infrastructure' - and no, I don't want to continue/go back to that. You cannot do that well and at that price on small-scale. If you think you can, you're doing something wrong.

People will host their own infrastructure if it's the better cost decision for them. No one is stopping a company or an individual from going the self hosted route.

EDIT: I guess you could advocate against Google, Amazon, Microsoft in general for anti monopoly purposes, but that's not the same as using a cloud provider. Granted, those three are the top three offerings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com