| ▲ | matthewmacleod a day ago | |||||||
I don’t think it’s a lie, it’s just perhaps overstated. The number of staff needed to manage a cloud infrastructure is definitely lower than that required to manage the equivalent self-hosted infrastructure. Whether or not you need that equivalence is an orthogonal question. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Nextgrid a day ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> The number of staff needed to manage a cloud infrastructure is definitely lower than that required to manage the equivalent self-hosted infrastructure. There's probably a sweet spot where that is true, but because cloud providers offer more complexity (self-inflicted problems) and use PR to encourage you to use them ("best practices" and so on) in all the cloud-hosted shops I've been in a decade of experience I've always seen multiple full-time infra people being busy with... something? There was always something to do, whether to keep up with cloud provider changes/deprecations, implementing the latest "best practice", debugging distributed systems failures or self-inflicted problems and so on. I'm sure career/resume polishing incentives are at play here too - the employee wants the system to require their input otherwise their job is no longer needed. Maybe in a perfect world you can indeed use cloud-hosted services to reduce/eliminate dedicated staff, but in practice I've never seen anything but solo founders actually achieve that. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | freedomben a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Exactly. Companies with cloud infra often still have to hire infra people or even an infra team, but that team will be smaller than if they were self-hosting everything, in some cases radically smaller. I love self-hosting stuff and even have a bias towards it, but the cost/time tradeoff is more complex than most people think. | ||||||||