Hacker News Reader

For projects with no income and need time to iterate, particularly if not a full-time thing, I’ll sleep comfortably (i.e. enjoy the boredom) of using AWS CloudFront, S3 static hosting and API Gateway with direct integrations (to SQS, DynamoDB, and Step Functions). Literally zero maintenance, essentially zero cost while developing and at low volumes, and will scale-up automatically if/when getting traction.

View on HN

Except these are all proprietary AWS things, with perhaps the aside of “S3 is well supported elsewhere”. Why would someone want to do that to themselves, especially with how tightly coupled that makes things?

I don’t view AWS as a replacement for PHP-like stacks at all.

What's the alternative to proprietary AWS? 000webhost? Buy your own server and own it all? Web3?

Cloudflare has both static hosting + CDN. There are dozens of CDNs and hundreds of static hosts that you could combine.

GCP, Azure also exist with similar solutions

I mean, whatever the problem with proprietary AWS, it seems like it would be the case with GCP, Azure, Cloudflare.

I don't really see the benefits of putting eggs in multiple baskets. If one basket is down (e.g. images) the site is practically down in many cases. Plus you have to deal with fragmented billing, etc.

How are Cloudflare, GCP and Azure any less proprietary than AWS?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com