Hacker News Reader

I wanted to write the same. One server in my basement never compares to a highly-available, compliant and secure infrastructure, surrounded by managed services. It's like complaining that taxis are more expensive than driving your own car.

View on HN

Every infrastructure is as secure as you configure it to be without bugs. Not that AWS doesn't allow for secure infastructure and you're basement is secure by default, but as a consultant I see clients when I ask them about security saying "We're secure because we use AWS.".

Tell that to Capital One.

One should definitely not default into "we're secure because we use AWS". But let's be honest, how many servers in the basement feature video surveillance? How many destroy their hard disks securely?

An honest statement would be "we reduced our burden of security by building on top of AWS".

Not to counter your point, but what I've learned and was suprised how cheap it is to letting a company destroy your harddisks and USB sticks - at least in Germany.

Yeah! The amount of toil and burden AWS removes or reduces for me across the board (security, managed services, running multiple datacentres and everything necessary to do so…) means I can work on vastly more valuable things. Which more than makes up for the price.

The cost of 1 server is not a sufficient metric of value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com