They’re Linux computers.

Anything AWS does you can run on Linux computers.

It’s naive to think that AWS is some sort of magically special system that transcends other networked computers, out of brand loyalty.

That’s the AWS kool aid that makes otherwise clever people think there’s no way any organization can run their own computer systems - only AWS has the skills for that.

▲

wiether 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It was already clear that you were in bad faith here when you suggested a VPS to replace AWS, no need to insist.

But you are absolutely right, I'm drinking the AWS kool aid like thousands of other otherwise clever people who don't know that AWS is just Linux computers!

▲

denvrede 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good luck managing the whole day-2 operations and the application layer on top of your VPS. You're just shuffling around your spending. For you it's not on compute anymore but manpower to manage that mess.

▲

mr_toad 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In theory. Good luck rolling your own version of S3.

▲

charcircuit 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You probably don't need it. I see so many people getting price gouged by S3 when it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to just throw the files on a basic HTTP server.

I sometimes feel bad using people's services built with S3 as I know my personal usage is costing them a lot of money despite paying them nothing.

▲

mr_toad 6 hours ago | parent [-]

A web server isn’t a storage solution. And a storage solution like S3 isn’t a delivery network. If you use the wrong tool expect problems.

	▲	charcircuit 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A web storage is connected to storage solutions like SSDs and S3 is connected to delivery networks like Internet. Using SSDs to store files or Internet to send files to a user are not the wrong tools.