> DNB Director Steven Maijoor announced last October that he intended to “set a good example” and switch to a European cloud, though he acknowledged that it “is not yet as robust or high-quality as the one from the U.S.”
> Last year, the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) and the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) warned that the Dutch financial sector had become too dependent on foreign IT service providers
I wonder how much if this is a personal choice, and how much is pressure from the government. Banks are famously the first target of politicians, and it's common in China for exec's to publicly choose a national option under pressure from the CPP.
If they cannot provide it nationally, Germany seems a good place to have it, especially as they are both EU.
At the very least a country dependent cloud services from multiple other countries is less dependent on any one of them than a country predominantly dependent on one (and most of Europe is currently dependent on US cloud providers).
the parent company (Schwarz Group) has over half a million employees and makes something like 200 billion in revenue per year, I think calling it a discount grocer is underselling it a bit lol.
Years ago I was making the case that instead of digging ourselves into the Amazon eco-system with S3 storage, EC2 instances, DynamoDB and various other Amazon specific cloud products... we should just host virtual machines and have everything in there using open source products.
People looked at me like they saw water burning but that would have made the dependency on the US a lot easier to sever. Just move the VM's.
The whole business model is around “Optimization through custom tools”.
We can go with your idea, sure: a few months in, an Account Manager from the cloud provider shows up and says your bill could be reduced by 50% if you just adopt some changes, using their custom, super optimized tools (“minor changes” will be the mantra).
And now you have your own company looking back to you on how can they get those savings, people who don’t understand what a VM is and cannot differentiate salesforce from an elastic container, as everything is “cloud”, but heard “50% off”.
Preventing this from happening requires a clued-in CTO and equivalent senior level leadership who can defend against such 'attack' methods and knows the difference between, for instance, paying a monthly recurring cost to host a Linux/KVM virtual machine and paying for some totally 'cloud' SaAs.
Further, it needs people in decision making roles who understand and value the strategic differences between having an infrastructure concept that is trapped in one provider's proprietary software tooling ecosystem (aws, azure, etc), vs things built on open standards that are portable.
> Preventing this from happening requires a clued-in CTO and equivalent senior level leadership who can defend against such 'attack' methods and knows the difference between, for instance, paying a monthly recurring cost to host a Linux/KVM virtual machine and paying for some totally 'cloud' SaAs.
And the reality is eventually you'll get a clueless one, and everything will revert to the mean.
And the mean is heavily influenced by marketing propaganda.
This is true, but making money in any business is constantly fighting against the entropy and regression to the mean. Also, maybe, just maybe it's an example of relative competitive advantage and paying more for the AWS is the right call.
> Preventing this from happening requires a clued-in CTO and equivalent senior level leadership
Most CTOs (and increasingly M2s and M3s) I've met are what I call "box architects". You know the ones who love drawing boxes, moving one box inside another box, drawing a line between 2 boxes or changing a unidirectional arrow into a bidirectional one, then declaring the hard part is done and now we need any random engineer to implement that or "Is there an AWS service that does that? I just don't see the value in us doing it in house".
A "super optimized tools" is just a box that you swap for another box and the "minor changes" will be just a couple of arrows than need to change or another box to swap for another box. You get them to feel good about doing architect stuff plus the 10x reduction in the bill. They can always replace that box with another box later after all.
We call those people PowerPoint architects. They haven't coded or built anything for so long, if ever, that they wouldn't even how to, by this point. The only tool they know is PowerPoint and their slides have more boxes with words than any big box store
> Do people actually take claims like that from glorified salesmen seriously?
People who know the tech, no
Non-technical middle management types, yes. It produces revenue when done aggressively enough, google "solarwinds sales people" for many anecdotal examples of extreme persistence. Not that I agree with it.
You'd be wrong to laugh at them, because different cars of the same general size can indeed vary 50% or more in fuel efficiency. It's fair to be skeptical of promises of huge savings, and question why your counterparty would benefit from giving you those savings, but sometimes there's a good reason.
The 2026 Toyota Corolla GR has 22mpg combined, and the normal 2026 Corolla has 35mpg with gas or 50mpg with a hybrid powertrain.
It is true that fuel economy regulations make it much less practical to deliver gas guzzlers out of pure laziness. (As you may know, the Corolla GR is by far the most expensive of these options, because it's designed to achieve horsepower over mileage.)
2018 - I see you are hosting your own PostgreSQL in EC2, you can use our managed solution
2020 - you are already using 18 our services (note, at this point you might still be using non-vendor products, like VMs, managed DB, and so on), why not use our IAM instead of rolling out your own auth.
2024 - you are now deeply locked, lets add more lock-in, why don't you use this tool to optimize your costs (welcome DynamoDB)
At this point, no one would ever question next tool from salesman. Because engineers see that company doesnt have strategy to move to another cloud, why should they reject this new tool?
also consider the people who are involved, a lot of times after 2 years you have totally new people in your team, they won't have context and constraints you had in the past when deciding to buy "just VM", they see it as "we already use AWS"
That. Also add the parts that engineers are terrified to their bones of moving elsewhere because they don't know how to use anything else and will act as extension of the salesman to make sure they don't need to learn anything.
I had many conversations with a former boss about the Azure sales team. They would come in, say they can do it cheaper, simpler and better — he was immediately convinced.
I would do a calculation based on their public price plan and come up with a 5-10x price compared to the bare metal OVH solution that perfectly fit our use case. I would then ask the sales team where I made a mistake in my calculation and hear nothing back.
A few months later, they would come back with the same pitch and the whole process would repeat...
AWS has been (blatantly) using Microsoft method of making their way in. Redis, Elasticsearch, whatnot, all follow the same procedure: 1. Here is a managed service. 2. Here is a fork of the managed service where we manage the server (you don't see) with 15% off in price/credits. Easier backups with clicks etc. 3. We are dropping support of managed-X, move to our fork. 4. Due to the market conditions, our forked service is now 50% more expensive. 5. Ah also, you cannot export/download your backups because they are in proprietary format. 6. Locked-in.
Most cloud VMs have network-attached storage working through a billing layer, and its IOPS numbers are pathetic. This makes running your own DB in a cloud VM much less reasonable. Now you can use local NVMe, but you still have to set up your own failover.
The original promise of the cloud is "you pay us less than you pay your sysadmins", which is not entirely unreasonable, especially at early stages.
Of course running on bare metal from Europe's own Hetzner is even more cost-efficient, if you already have a lot of sysadmin chops.
Projects like Ceph and Minio have existed for years, though?
Beyond that, I just don't understand your point of view at all. Do people unironically think there is some super special dark magic being done in the bowels of Amazon, as opposed to just...code that runs on (virtual and physical) machines? The open source community yielded Linux but it's just sooo impossible for it to yield an object storage service? What a strangely shackled view of the world.
> No it’s using an army of extremely well paid engineers, something I guarantee the parent comment has no access to
That's a different argument to the one I replied to, and the reply to "they have expensive infra people" is "you have to have expensive product-trained people to use them anyway".
The suggestion was to replace DBB and S3 with some VMs. Presumably those VMs would be managed by the engineers part of the parent commenter’s organization. They do not have access to as many engineers as AWS, nor do they pay them as well.
Not arguing about cost effectiveness here. Just pointing out how silly it is to suggest that you can replace DDB/S3 with some VMs ran by a midsize organization
I prefer not using managed services but I kind of understand the appeal. Instead of paying several engineers, that you have to vet first, to configure and maintain the services adjacent to your product you can just pay AWS or Azure or someone else to maintain the service. Then you can concentrate your whole manpower on your product. In case the service goes down you can blame someone else and maybe even recover some money. On the other hand it of course makes you dependent on the provider.
You are correct but I don't know about the cost structure. Also you have to somehow verify that they do a good job. You sometimes only see bad work when something goes wrong. Also you have to first find a company that provides the service.
The cloud makes it simple. They offer you managed service X. They hire experts for service x and you pay a part of the cost on top of your infra cost. No searching. No vetting. You just use the service.
I see the why this might be attractive. It isn't to me. But the pencil pushers like it.
In my experience it doesn’t take long until you use such complex offerings from the cloud vendors, you need those ops engineers anyways. Just with slightly different skillsets.
I'd say you need people with certain skill sets anyways but at a certain scale you have to get specialized people for some service. Database admins, kubernetes admins, network admins. At a small scale that can be one or two people. But if you want 24/7 with a bigger scale you need multiple people for each role. You have to find them, pay them, schedule their absences.
To some management types it looks like a good deal to not deal with that and just let Amazon/Microsoft/Google/etc. deal with finding people to support the service and just pay a bit extra to the infra cost. Then you can only hire cloud infra admins. I don't think it works that way but that is what I have observed.
> Instead of paying several engineers, that you have to vet first, to configure and maintain the services adjacent to your product you can just pay AWS or Azure or someone else to maintain the service.
Your engineers who all have to possess AWS or similar certs before you hire them, work for free?
A move off VPS to managed services doesn't reduce your headcount or labour costs.
You are correct. Someone has to manage and plan the infra. But that is the same for on prem or other non cloud. What you don't necessary need is several database admins, several network admins, several kubernetes admins, etc. I don't necessarily agree, but that is the calculation. Azure hires the 24/7 admins for the service and you pay a bit more to get a share of them. I have heard this argument in person.
I think there is a very narrow space where you need the resources that this provides and it's not yet more cost effective to have your own team of admins. At a certain headcount a the number admins don't matter that much anymore.
Yep, been in a job like this. Use AWS because the team is three people and they don't want to waste time on patching, database administration, networking etc. I agree you pay more but in that team we were just able to get on with building the products.
Agreed - I use AWS at work and try and keep the services we use to a minimum. S3 and DynamoDB are ones that somewhat lock us in but the way we use them, they are replaceable (not relying on any niche features). The different queue services would definitely be harder to swap out though.
There was a period when development and system adminstrators were really concerned about vendor lock in and would choose on the basis of the ease of moving to a different platform, Java and J2EE was clearly based on this mindset. I have always found it odd people have been willing to adopt AWS with no apparent easy route off given its price.
I've operated at companies using both models, and have observed similar reactions to suggestions of using the cloud.
To me it's like anything else in engineering, are the costs, risks, and benefits fully understood, and worth the tradeoff in the particular context.
I worked for a startup doing internet of things, the consumer would buy a device and get lifetime service baked in. And that company was a step further, just renting space in a colo was incredibly cost efficient, which supported the sales model and competitive landscape of that product. But it was also very costly to attention, one of the most valuable resources. But it can also get costly in non-intuitive ways, an example that comes to mind is we started to get interviews where a generation of candidates no longer had experience with metal, it was a foreign world to them.
With more experience, I find it's really the costs that get severely underestimated, both for and against the suggestion.
Especially in larger organizations, it's easy to lose track of all the distributed soft costs that DIY can bring (and all the bus factors that may be involved). There are lots of people that kinda want to get paid and get benefits and which require some level of management structure.
At some point, you have people (on here and elsewhere) questioning what all these people in an organization do. PART of the answer is that they're doing internal work that could have been outsourced in various ways.
I’ve struggled with convincing colleagues to host on something other than AWS. I’m not sure they understand the costs and aren’t simply doubling-down on the evil they already know.
In fact, I had no idea our static website at a scale-up in 2019 was costing us 90€/month; it came up when we were told to cut costs. Developers don’t always have a say in these things.
Heck, I then went and got a series of certifications in GCP. Even then, I’m not sure I’d understand the full complexity and pricing options of GCP. Smaller clouds and simple VPS solutions really are the overlooked option.
I am running my startup out of a self build GPU server from our office with a backup to the cloud.
I only pay for the IP address as electricity is included in the rent.
If the startup fails, Ill have thousand other potential use case for it and in the worst case, it will make for a awesome gaming machine.
The machine is a beast and I can serve a lot of users with it. In fact, and quite funnily, I already serve much more users with it than a lot of my older clients do with their software running on expensive k8s setup because „scale“ :-)
And last, but not least, I had a lot of fun building it. Its just nice to hear that thing humming away in the corner.
> The machine is a beast and I can serve a lot of users with it. In fact, and quite funnily, I already serve much more users with it than a lot of my older clients do with their software running on expensive k8s setup because „scale“ :-)
Honestly even if you have a single server, running k8s (or maybe Docker Compose for really simple cases) on it is still the simplest way to manage it (assuming you have more than 1 service, anyway). One configuration file format, one CLI tool, zero special paths to memorize, no filesystem permissions to configure, pretty good security out of the box, access to a whole bunch of helm charts and operators (for example, cert-manager, external-dns, prometheus, alert-manager, some logging operator for centralized logging with a decent UI and search, and a postgres operator for backups / replication / failover), etc.
I don’t disagree. What you know matters, but I think it’s a lot easier to learn Kubernetes than it is to learn all of the disparate tools that you need to know to cobble together something similar. Moreover, because Kubernetes is somewhat standardized, you are much more likely to be able to find quality sources on the Internet (or LLLMs, nowadays) and similarly you’re much more likely to be able to find personnel who are familiar with it compared to some bespoke alternative.
It’s also worth noting that Kubernetes is conceptually quite simple—once you realize that it’s just a database of resources that are being watched by controllers, things start to click into place and it feels much simpler.
In some sense Kubernetes is a bit like democracy or capitalism—it’s the worst in its class except for everything else that has been tried. :)
> Capitalism winning does not show it is better as there are a lot more factors. ... Google could have built something else and they still would have succeeded at doing what they did.
Maybe Google could have built something better than Kubernetes, but my point was that this doesn't do me any good. I can't _use_ the hypothetical better-than-Kubernetes product because it's hypothetical. So in the world of things that actually exist, Kubernetes is best in class despite the many valid criticisms of it.
> In my opinion, everything you wrote are opinions
Yes, my comment was my opinion.
> Installing and managing rke on bare metal was more difficult than doing the same with nomad for me.
Maybe Nomad is better. I haven't used it. I'm skeptical that it has the ecosystem breadth that Kubernetes has, but I'm happy to be wrong.
> Or another example, installing clickhouse using apt was easier and worked better than doing it with docker.
That's not really a useful comparison because (1) a system typically involves a lot more than just a singular database and (2) running a system involves a lot more than getting the software onto the machine. If you want to make a meaningful comparison, you need something like Ansible or Cloud Init to invoke apt and to wire everything together and at that point Kubernetes is _likely_ already easier. Especially when you consider logs, metrics, certificates, DNS, etc.
That's genuinely my baseline, then I ask 'why do we want to manage this dependency?'
I can appreciate the desire to close gaps on expertise deficiency and make a vendor responsible, but the whole schtick of 'outsource everything and focus on your business for advantage' always rang to me as just an excuse to give our money to vendors.
Its almost as if the whole case for vertical integration is just taken as a wash
Calculations from me and others have proven that cloud providers use 5-10x multipliers when selling you things. The less you use them, the better is your bottom line. At the beginning it maybe makes sense to use cloud credits to get you moving, but when credits expire or your organization grows, it is wise to invest in people that can setup things on their own. The biggest lie that cloud providers managed to sell to the world, that you don't need knowledgeable people to run things in cloud.
Schwarz seems to be obsessed with how Amazon (book seller) created AWS and they are trying to do the same... with 5 people. Also Aleph Alpha + Cohere is a Lidl work as the current CEO of the former led Lidl digital division.
Schwarz Gruppe includes Schwarz Digits, which include StackIT. 7500 is the number of employees at Digits, which also includes online marketplaces like Kaufland e-commerce, so definitely not all of them work on the sovereign cloud.
Yeah, kind of. Lidl and Kaufland is owned by the Schwarz Group. They have been busy replicating the AWS orgin story. Their cloud is called StackIT. I've worked with them. Still some room to grow but a solid foundation. I like that competition is back on
The title is heavy clickbait. To say I just bought a Porsche when it was actually a Volkswagen is also wrong. Just because they belong to the same owner doesn't make it the same brand.
However it was more complicated than that. Porche owned 50+% of Volkswagen at the time of Volkswagen buying them. Porche got over extended and leveraged buying Volkswagen . The management family is closely connected since the start and at the time in early 2010s 20% government ownership rule was just getting stuck down by European courts .
Ok so nothing has actually happened. It's also not specified whether this is in addition to their AWS footprint, or if it's a migration. It will be interesting to see an update in 5 years on how this goes.
Ok so nothing has actually happened. These migrations are difficult and expensive, and often fail. It will be interesting to see an update in 5 years on how this went.
> Last year, the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) and the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) warned that the Dutch financial sector had become too dependent on foreign IT service providers
I wonder how much if this is a personal choice, and how much is pressure from the government. Banks are famously the first target of politicians, and it's common in China for exec's to publicly choose a national option under pressure from the CPP.
At the very least a country dependent cloud services from multiple other countries is less dependent on any one of them than a country predominantly dependent on one (and most of Europe is currently dependent on US cloud providers).
People looked at me like they saw water burning but that would have made the dependency on the US a lot easier to sever. Just move the VM's.
We can go with your idea, sure: a few months in, an Account Manager from the cloud provider shows up and says your bill could be reduced by 50% if you just adopt some changes, using their custom, super optimized tools (“minor changes” will be the mantra).
And now you have your own company looking back to you on how can they get those savings, people who don’t understand what a VM is and cannot differentiate salesforce from an elastic container, as everything is “cloud”, but heard “50% off”.
Further, it needs people in decision making roles who understand and value the strategic differences between having an infrastructure concept that is trapped in one provider's proprietary software tooling ecosystem (aws, azure, etc), vs things built on open standards that are portable.
And the reality is eventually you'll get a clueless one, and everything will revert to the mean.
And the mean is heavily influenced by marketing propaganda.
Most CTOs (and increasingly M2s and M3s) I've met are what I call "box architects". You know the ones who love drawing boxes, moving one box inside another box, drawing a line between 2 boxes or changing a unidirectional arrow into a bidirectional one, then declaring the hard part is done and now we need any random engineer to implement that or "Is there an AWS service that does that? I just don't see the value in us doing it in house".
A "super optimized tools" is just a box that you swap for another box and the "minor changes" will be just a couple of arrows than need to change or another box to swap for another box. You get them to feel good about doing architect stuff plus the 10x reduction in the bill. They can always replace that box with another box later after all.
If a car salesman told me I could save 50% of my fuel bill from driving their special car a certain way I'd laugh at them.
People who know the tech, no
Non-technical middle management types, yes. It produces revenue when done aggressively enough, google "solarwinds sales people" for many anecdotal examples of extreme persistence. Not that I agree with it.
I have a very hard time believing this, especially with fuel economy and emission regulations
It is true that fuel economy regulations make it much less practical to deliver gas guzzlers out of pure laziness. (As you may know, the Corolla GR is by far the most expensive of these options, because it's designed to achieve horsepower over mileage.)
2016 - lets use EC2, its just VM, we can move off
2018 - I see you are hosting your own PostgreSQL in EC2, you can use our managed solution
2020 - you are already using 18 our services (note, at this point you might still be using non-vendor products, like VMs, managed DB, and so on), why not use our IAM instead of rolling out your own auth.
2024 - you are now deeply locked, lets add more lock-in, why don't you use this tool to optimize your costs (welcome DynamoDB)
At this point, no one would ever question next tool from salesman. Because engineers see that company doesnt have strategy to move to another cloud, why should they reject this new tool?
also consider the people who are involved, a lot of times after 2 years you have totally new people in your team, they won't have context and constraints you had in the past when deciding to buy "just VM", they see it as "we already use AWS"
I would do a calculation based on their public price plan and come up with a 5-10x price compared to the bare metal OVH solution that perfectly fit our use case. I would then ask the sales team where I made a mistake in my calculation and hear nothing back.
A few months later, they would come back with the same pitch and the whole process would repeat...
The original promise of the cloud is "you pay us less than you pay your sysadmins", which is not entirely unreasonable, especially at early stages.
Of course running on bare metal from Europe's own Hetzner is even more cost-efficient, if you already have a lot of sysadmin chops.
Unlike most VPSes
I don’t blame people for being skeptical
Beyond that, I just don't understand your point of view at all. Do people unironically think there is some super special dark magic being done in the bowels of Amazon, as opposed to just...code that runs on (virtual and physical) machines? The open source community yielded Linux but it's just sooo impossible for it to yield an object storage service? What a strangely shackled view of the world.
Well... yes?
What do you think the AWS S3 and DDB is running on? Fairy dust?
That's a different argument to the one I replied to, and the reply to "they have expensive infra people" is "you have to have expensive product-trained people to use them anyway".
The suggestion was to replace DBB and S3 with some VMs. Presumably those VMs would be managed by the engineers part of the parent commenter’s organization. They do not have access to as many engineers as AWS, nor do they pay them as well.
Not arguing about cost effectiveness here. Just pointing out how silly it is to suggest that you can replace DDB/S3 with some VMs ran by a midsize organization
I don't blame people for being skeptical
The cloud makes it simple. They offer you managed service X. They hire experts for service x and you pay a part of the cost on top of your infra cost. No searching. No vetting. You just use the service.
I see the why this might be attractive. It isn't to me. But the pencil pushers like it.
To some management types it looks like a good deal to not deal with that and just let Amazon/Microsoft/Google/etc. deal with finding people to support the service and just pay a bit extra to the infra cost. Then you can only hire cloud infra admins. I don't think it works that way but that is what I have observed.
Your engineers who all have to possess AWS or similar certs before you hire them, work for free?
A move off VPS to managed services doesn't reduce your headcount or labour costs.
I think there is a very narrow space where you need the resources that this provides and it's not yet more cost effective to have your own team of admins. At a certain headcount a the number admins don't matter that much anymore.
If you're using managed services that are so complex you need certified people then you're doing it wrong
Another advantage of AWS is permission management, automatic RDS snapshots, cloudwatch comes out of the box...
You can do everything with VMs, but in practise it's probably much harder.
It's the new "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
To me it's like anything else in engineering, are the costs, risks, and benefits fully understood, and worth the tradeoff in the particular context.
I worked for a startup doing internet of things, the consumer would buy a device and get lifetime service baked in. And that company was a step further, just renting space in a colo was incredibly cost efficient, which supported the sales model and competitive landscape of that product. But it was also very costly to attention, one of the most valuable resources. But it can also get costly in non-intuitive ways, an example that comes to mind is we started to get interviews where a generation of candidates no longer had experience with metal, it was a foreign world to them.
With more experience, I find it's really the costs that get severely underestimated, both for and against the suggestion.
At some point, you have people (on here and elsewhere) questioning what all these people in an organization do. PART of the answer is that they're doing internal work that could have been outsourced in various ways.
In fact, I had no idea our static website at a scale-up in 2019 was costing us 90€/month; it came up when we were told to cut costs. Developers don’t always have a say in these things.
Heck, I then went and got a series of certifications in GCP. Even then, I’m not sure I’d understand the full complexity and pricing options of GCP. Smaller clouds and simple VPS solutions really are the overlooked option.
Unfortunately this is neither the case for very large, or very small companies.
Very large companies may have some experience, but it is usually legacy. Or buried under processes and politics.
Small companies will not have the experience to make the analysis
The machine is a beast and I can serve a lot of users with it. In fact, and quite funnily, I already serve much more users with it than a lot of my older clients do with their software running on expensive k8s setup because „scale“ :-)
And last, but not least, I had a lot of fun building it. Its just nice to hear that thing humming away in the corner.
Honestly even if you have a single server, running k8s (or maybe Docker Compose for really simple cases) on it is still the simplest way to manage it (assuming you have more than 1 service, anyway). One configuration file format, one CLI tool, zero special paths to memorize, no filesystem permissions to configure, pretty good security out of the box, access to a whole bunch of helm charts and operators (for example, cert-manager, external-dns, prometheus, alert-manager, some logging operator for centralized logging with a decent UI and search, and a postgres operator for backups / replication / failover), etc.
It’s also worth noting that Kubernetes is conceptually quite simple—once you realize that it’s just a database of resources that are being watched by controllers, things start to click into place and it feels much simpler.
In some sense Kubernetes is a bit like democracy or capitalism—it’s the worst in its class except for everything else that has been tried. :)
Same situation with Kubernetes. Google could have built something else and they still would have succeeded at doing what they did.
In my opinion, everything you wrote are opinions. Installing and managing rke on bare metal was more difficult than doing the same with nomad for me.
Or another example, installing clickhouse using apt was easier and worked better than doing it with docker.
In the end we can do what we can do because we learnt the tool and the problem. And the tool is sufficient.
Argument about the quality of the tool is too difficult unless we know all discussed tools in-depth
Maybe Google could have built something better than Kubernetes, but my point was that this doesn't do me any good. I can't _use_ the hypothetical better-than-Kubernetes product because it's hypothetical. So in the world of things that actually exist, Kubernetes is best in class despite the many valid criticisms of it.
> In my opinion, everything you wrote are opinions
Yes, my comment was my opinion.
> Installing and managing rke on bare metal was more difficult than doing the same with nomad for me.
Maybe Nomad is better. I haven't used it. I'm skeptical that it has the ecosystem breadth that Kubernetes has, but I'm happy to be wrong.
> Or another example, installing clickhouse using apt was easier and worked better than doing it with docker.
That's not really a useful comparison because (1) a system typically involves a lot more than just a singular database and (2) running a system involves a lot more than getting the software onto the machine. If you want to make a meaningful comparison, you need something like Ansible or Cloud Init to invoke apt and to wire everything together and at that point Kubernetes is _likely_ already easier. Especially when you consider logs, metrics, certificates, DNS, etc.
I can appreciate the desire to close gaps on expertise deficiency and make a vendor responsible, but the whole schtick of 'outsource everything and focus on your business for advantage' always rang to me as just an excuse to give our money to vendors.
Its almost as if the whole case for vertical integration is just taken as a wash
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17541092
https://accounts.stackit.cloud/ui/login/user
Yes, when you pay you have to print a receipt with QR code, and then have to scan it to log out.
It’s very much not a discount cloud provider. They are costly unlike their physical discount grocery stores.
VW bought Porsche
However it was more complicated than that. Porche owned 50+% of Volkswagen at the time of Volkswagen buying them. Porche got over extended and leveraged buying Volkswagen . The management family is closely connected since the start and at the time in early 2010s 20% government ownership rule was just getting stuck down by European courts .
Ok so nothing has actually happened. It's also not specified whether this is in addition to their AWS footprint, or if it's a migration. It will be interesting to see an update in 5 years on how this goes.
Ok so nothing has actually happened. These migrations are difficult and expensive, and often fail. It will be interesting to see an update in 5 years on how this went.
https://stackit.com/en