Lol, just migrate it… Like it’s that simple. Many companies have gotten vendor locked in to specific cloud providers and the services they offer. You can’t just flip a switch and move to Azure or somewhere else. Assuming other clouds even have the capacity to take on all of AWS clients all at once… And it’s not just websites, many government and even military servers are in AWS these days.
Them is all of us. Things like Centers for Medicare and Medicaid run in AWS. Just about every service the government provides probably has some piece on AWS. Turning off AWS would not end well.
Well yeah but when they were broken up one of the fearmongering things was the physical infrastructure. There’s no reason to believe this would be any different. Just hopefully with less monopoly a couple decades down the line.
This is a little different than a phone company. But you’re right that breaking them up would be the much more sane thing to do rather than shutting them down. It’s not easy to migrate servers, it is easy to change who you’re paying.
Truth. Whenever I’ve asked an enterprise architect whether the company should really be vendor-locked to the point of using proprietary cloud-native services they say it will never matter. Tech workers think in terms of the two or three years they stay in each role.
(Amazon and MS are nothing on the extent to which Oracle owns you if you invite the Devil in.)
I work for Red Hat, we’re doing our best to fight that kind of vendor lock in. Hybrid cloud and expand out to whichever cloud you want. The vendor lock in is serious out there.
All the important military servers are secured. We could do with losing all the PowerPoints with a bad animated mascot telling you that you do in fact have to stop at a stop light.
Lol, just migrate it… Like it’s that simple. Many companies have gotten vendor locked in to specific cloud providers and the services they offer. You can’t just flip a switch and move to Azure or somewhere else. Assuming other clouds even have the capacity to take on all of AWS clients all at once… And it’s not just websites, many government and even military servers are in AWS these days.
I guess if nothing else it would create new jobs, that’s important, right?
It would keep me gainfully employed. There would probably be a huge demand for OpenShift and its cloud agnostic design after that.
Oh well, sucks to be them!
Them is all of us. Things like Centers for Medicare and Medicaid run in AWS. Just about every service the government provides probably has some piece on AWS. Turning off AWS would not end well.
The physical servers would change ownership and the AWS standard between them would slowly diverge. Same kind of thing as the baby bells.
Do you mean the Bells that have reassembled?
Well yeah but when they were broken up one of the fearmongering things was the physical infrastructure. There’s no reason to believe this would be any different. Just hopefully with less monopoly a couple decades down the line.
This is a little different than a phone company. But you’re right that breaking them up would be the much more sane thing to do rather than shutting them down. It’s not easy to migrate servers, it is easy to change who you’re paying.
Oh well, sucks to be us!
Truth. Whenever I’ve asked an enterprise architect whether the company should really be vendor-locked to the point of using proprietary cloud-native services they say it will never matter. Tech workers think in terms of the two or three years they stay in each role.
(Amazon and MS are nothing on the extent to which Oracle owns you if you invite the Devil in.)
I work for Red Hat, we’re doing our best to fight that kind of vendor lock in. Hybrid cloud and expand out to whichever cloud you want. The vendor lock in is serious out there.
All the important military servers are secured. We could do with losing all the PowerPoints with a bad animated mascot telling you that you do in fact have to stop at a stop light.