Hacker News Reader

Comment by martinald | Hacker News Reader

There's a lot of revisionist history around what AWS allowed.

RackShack and other companies offered pretty cheap (started at $99/month IIRC) dedicated Linux servers which loads of startups used before AWS. There was also various virtual machine providers in the market.

These articles make it sound like every company before AWS had to build their own datacenter or at least buy a million dollars worth of Sun hardware to put a website online.

View on HN

Heck,

old colleagues of mine have been doing "dedicated/shared hosting" for the better part of nearly 25 years.

virtual private servers have existed for 20 decades+.

I think 20 decades might be a bit of an exaggeration.

No I actually remember reading a letter Lovelace wrote to Babbage about problems with chroot

IBM mainframes virtual machines saying hello => "It is directly based on technology and concepts dating back to the 1960s" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z/VM

20 decades ago would be 1821 A.D., four decades before the First American Civil War.

That’s what the CIA would have you believe.

ofcourse you are right,

i meant 2 decades :)

The biggest thing that AWS offered in the beginning was extreme proximity to the backbone. Their services have grown by the dozens, and other hosting services have followed suit, but they remain (as far as I know) one of the closest points [ EDIT: without co-location ] you can put a VM to the backbone.

I don't know what you mean by backbone? Loads of providers offered/offer multiple redundant tier 1 fibre connections.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com