this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
161 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

75041 readers
2912 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 76 points 2 days ago (9 children)

My company recently migrated from on-premise to AWS to “save money”; in the first month we now have test environment instances which we shut down outside of business hours because of high cost.

Great, so work gets done slower AND we pay more? Fucking genius.

Cloud is a sick joke to capture revenue.

[–] Loucypher@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago

Are you counting in the cost of running on prem? Hardware, aircon, building security, electricity, hardware tech support?

[–] loudwhisper@infosec.pub 4 points 1 day ago

Not to self-promote, but I have expressed my opinion on the topic.

Wait until you will need a team of people to optimize cloud costs.(finops) for peak irony.

[–] eclipse@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

I can't argue, but there are benefits.

If you need something running 24/7 then on-prem may work out cheaper for you. Keep in mind you need a team of server monkeys to keep that running, and your company's security certifications will come nowhere near that of a major cloud provider.

Cloud is good for elastic workloads. And you can save money that way if you're set up for it. A simple lift and shift will always be more expensive. But doing things like moving build tasks to spot instances and auto scaling capacity in peak periods is a huge win. No need to over provision your DC and no need to upgrade your hardware -- generally AWS releases new products at roughly the same price as old but with increased performance. You get upgrades "for free"* with no capex.

Again I'm not saying that your circumstance means that cloud isn't more expensive. But there are medium term benefits.

AWS refused to offer hybrid as an option for years. They've changed their tune in the past 5 or so. No reason not to take advantage and do what mix makes sense for you.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 21 points 2 days ago

AWS

save money

lmao

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Get customer to platform

Lock in customer

Raise costs

Profit

[–] egrets@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, but it's OpEx, so it's just imaginary expenditure.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I've heard this before but I still can't wrap my head around why some money counts and some doesn't

[–] Flisty@mstdn.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@boatswain @egrets same as firing staff only to use more expensive contractors to do the same job, or selling a building you own only to rent the same building from someone else. It doesn't come from the same budget line, because it's lower risk, in the sense that you could in theory just stop paying the money if your strategy/situation changes, and you won't have ongoing expenses just from "owning" the thing. In reality you're usually still locked in, just paying more.

[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 1 points 23 hours ago

Still seems like voodoo to me

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Creative business accounting.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Because it's someone else's fault.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I miss having data centres.

It was fine to run a SQL query that took 6 hours because the cost was a few dollars.

Now that cost is thousands of dollars.

Hurray!

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used to be on a team of 10 people that installed & managed roughly 3,000 servers and associated networking gear. We got hit hard in the early 2000’s by the Capacitor Plague and it fell on me to identify around 700 faulty motherboards and manage their replacement.

I don’t miss that at all…

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Thankfully I’m not in IT, but I worked at a place that ordered a batch of faulty drives.

That was a pain in the ass.

[–] AAA@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

Do we work for the same company? Exactly same story here. Also just botched the Oracle to Aurora migration.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago)

You're gonna get some "git gud scrub" responses, but really the high cost is just what everyone discovers; it's just your turn.

In both my jobs I went through the eager take-up of (pub) cloud and saas schemes, and then the eventual 90% repatriation of compute.

Turns out it's still cheaper to run your own team with your own priv-cloud gear in a DC. Like, usually by a good amount. Yes, Virginia, even if you're a black belt cloud master of saas (which is just sales and kool-aid).