IMHO, you're gonna struggle if you move anywhere else from AWS. We're migrating to GCP and there are gaps all over the place.
We migrated from AWS to GCP in 2016/2017 (mostly VMs and related stuff, CloudFront, etc - no lambdas) and it was pretty painless and everything worked smoothly until the end of that company.
> S3
Hasn't this recently been an issue where Amazon arbitrarily changes the S3 contract and all software following it as a spec has to play catch-up?
Although perhaps it’s about time we made a proper standard based on S3, yeah.
The S3 system is proprietary to Amazon, and it's your fault if you're not using Amazon but you're relying on Amazon to not change it anyway, because they have no obligation to you.
The concept of object storage is not proprietary. You should be able to change your code to use a different object storage provider.
I was trying to point out that S3's protocol is "proprietary" so if you're using it you're still (somewhat) using "proprietary bullshit" in your stack!
Not that most of our customers whose AWS environment we audit do much of this, at least not beyond some basics like creating a vlan ("virtual private cloud"), three layers of proxies to "load balance" a traffic volume that my old laptop could handle without moving the load average above 0.2, and some super complex authentication/IAM rules for a handful of roles and service accounts iirc
(The other half of the point is infinite scale, so that you can get infinite customers signing up and using the system at once (which hopefully pay before your infinite AWS bill is due), but you can still do that with VPSes and managed databases/storage.)
And one small note: apart from S3, virtually all AWS services are tied to a VPC, any kind of deployment starts with "ok, in what VPC do you want this resource?".
At Azure or GCP you pay a similar price but you don't even get the reliability so literally why would you use them? The only reason I see is that "cloud" means you can start instances at any time without a setup fee or contract duration. But with the amount of cost difference, you could have three times your baseline "cloud" load running all the time at a non-cloud hoster, and still save money!
> Isn't at least half the point of AWS to use their SaaS thingies
It is. (That’s how they lock you in!) I think it’s okay to use some AWS stuff once in a while, but I’d be wary of building your whole app architecture around AWS.
I’m in the self-hosters camp myself :-) I’m building a Docker dashboard to make it easier to build, ship, and monitor applications on any server: https://lunni.dev/
I’ll rethink the landing page animations a bit later! (I was thinking about redoing it from scratch again, anyway :^)
Yep yep, we're on the same page here, just that it sounded a bit like you recommend people to use EC2, managed Postgres, and S3, when that seems a bit like that defeats the purpose of using a big cloud vendor in the first place since those products can be gotten much cheaper elsewhere
Just clicked the link to your website: your hero statement I sorta have on a t-shirt (there is no cloud, just someone else's computer). The footer statement "To improve your browsing experience we don’t use cookies" I have nearly literally on one of my websites. We are definitely on the same page xD. The website seems to think I'm from Talinn btw, maybe a reverse proxy issue (that it looks up the IP address' location of a proxy instead of that of my German IP address)? I do second the remark posted in a sibling comment about fading in content, but (maybe you adjusted it already) it fades fast enough that it doesn't bother me as much as on some other websites. Could still be faster though imo
Good luck with the product!
Except Azure - AFAIK it's pretty much the only cloud provider that doesn't support S3 API, see e.g. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/1183760/...
And there’s also an issue with client libraries and their compatibility with various implementations. I recently discovered this issue:
https://github.com/boto/botocore/issues/3394
This is GCS implementing the S3 API incorrectly in a way that really ought not to break clients, but it’s still odd because the particular bug on GCS’s end seems like it took active effort to get wrong. But it’s also boto (the main library used in Python to access S3 and compatible services) doing something silly, tripping over GCS’s bug, and failing. And it’s AWS, who owns boto, freely admitting that they don’t intend to fix it, because boto isn’t actually intended to work with services that are merely compatible with S3.
As icing on the cake, to report this bug to Google, I apparently need to pay $29 plus a 3% surcharge on my GCS usage. Thanks.
Time to check out OpenDAL, I suppose.
That's the price of a support contract, not a "bug report". And it's not "plus", it's "or": support costs $29/month or 3% of your monthly billing, whichever is greater. It comes with SLA agreements for fixing or working around your reported problems. Though obviously in this case they'll probably just tell you to use their own python library and not boto.
And this situation is bad business. Google advertises that GCS has S3 interoperability support. And they have customers who use it in its interoperable mode. Presumably those customers could use GCS’s biggest competitor, too. Shouldn’t Google try to make the S3 interop work correctly?
Honestly it seems to me like you're excited to have found a bug and want to report it for glory; we've all been there. But No One Cares about that stuff in the world of commercial software. They fix bugs for real customers, not internet rock stars. If you aren't losing even $29 (one mid-tier meal!) from this bug, well... does it even rise to the level of "yell about it on HN?".
What’s the point of S3 compatibility then?
Again, this isn't an open source product. It's not like there's a universal agreement that coordination and compatibility are ideals to be respected, nor a public place for discussion and development. Google is trying to make GCS as S3 compatible as possible, but obviously they prioritize their paying customers (who seem not to have reported this issue). Amazon does not want GCS to be boto-compatible at all, really.
Now of course, that's a very sizable if...