[HN Gopher] AWS is playing chess, Cloudflare is playing Go
___________________________________________________________________
AWS is playing chess, Cloudflare is playing Go
Author : pimterry
Score : 641 points
Date : 2021-10-18 10:28 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.swyx.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.swyx.io)
| TomSwirly wrote:
| > In Chess, you win when you take the King, which in effect has
| infinite point value, and it is relatively uncommon to come to a
| draw.
|
| Over half of chess games end in a draw, it's the most common
| outcome!
| ryanisnan wrote:
| On the whole analogy of R2 circling S3 as a go metaphor - what
| happens if AWS were to simply nix egress costs?
|
| I wish Cloudflare all the success, but I don't know if they have
| a substantive moat here.
| pas wrote:
| Then everyone who had to run in AWS now has the option to think
| about running outside. Which establishes a new market sector
| and puts enormous (?) downward pressure on the price of some
| internal services.
|
| Cloudflare is not worried about this, they want that, because
| it would open market access to a lot of juicy potential
| clients, who are already cloud ready but AWS locked in.
|
| Plus they have this shot, they try to make this count, to get
| traction. If AWS moves now it'll be attributed to them. At that
| point they win by default. (At least that's the theory :))
| Rapzid wrote:
| Do a lot of people "run" on S3? I'm guess that sort of thin
| lock-in is perhaps a tiny portion of S3 and AWSs utility
| billing revenue?
|
| Even so, dropping egress fees if they see substantial
| migration could completely change the calculus on the
| switching costs for users.
| pas wrote:
| Every data processing workload is basically S3 based.
| Hadoop in the cloud is nothing more than X on HDFS on S3.
|
| But egress fees apply for everything, not just S3.
|
| Currently cross-cloud or multi-cloud orchestration and/or
| scheduling makes no sense, because egress fees just make it
| uneconomical (in most cases). The lower the fee gets the
| better the numbers will look like for mixing and marching
| services from providers.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Just wanted to point out that you can in fact install Cloudflare
| on your mobile phone: https://blog.cloudflare.com/1111-warp-
| better-vpn/
| lucasverra wrote:
| Mmm too much wording for a big-tech overlord free product.
|
| I've used nextdns.io as a "free & limited" and now paying
| customer.
|
| Get rid of trackers and ads by dns, I get to give them
| 20usd/year, so I know that their business model should not be
| to resell my data. There is an affiliate link to give if you
| are interested.
|
| iOS app and great UI in the web.
| tyingq wrote:
| The lead-in is about the 1.1.1.1 dns product, but the bulk of
| the article is about the VPN/accelerator, Warp.
| swyx wrote:
| dear god. of course they have an app. will update! thanks
| michael :)
| igtztorrero wrote:
| "You can check-out any time you like ... but you can never leave!
| "
|
| That's why I choose Digital
| badrabbit wrote:
| How does their s3 replacement fare against backblaze b2?
| u2c4m6 wrote:
| The problem with B2 is the API request costs can easily bring
| it over 1.5 cents per GB per month. If R2 can keep to free
| egress and free (or at least the cheapest) API requests, it
| will blow all other competitors out of the water. The only
| provider who provides free S3 compatible with free egress and
| free API calls is Linode at 2 cents per GB per month. The
| downside with Linode is your S3 is limited to one region. For
| now though they are an amazing choice because I can have cheap
| S3 with unlimited egress in the same region as my managed k8s,
| also with unlimited egress. The main thing that stresses me out
| with Linode is having to manage my own SQL database...
| prirun wrote:
| (Author of Hashbackup) B2 pricing is 0.5
| cents/GB/mo, R2 is 1.5 cents/GB/mo. B2 egress is 1
| cents/GB/mo with 1GB/day free, R2 is free.
|
| If your cloud storage is for backups, B2 is likely to be less
| expensive because backups are rarely downloaded and their
| 1GB/day of free egress is enough to do backup maintenance to
| optimize storage.
|
| Cloudflare's CDN can proxy a B2 bucket to get free egress and
| maybe faster downloads (haven't needed it myself):
|
| https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217666928-Using...
|
| I'm a big fan of B2 because: - they have low
| pricing - they have simple pricing - they don't use
| gimmicks: minimum storage time, minimum file size, minimum
| payment per month, etc.
|
| HashBackup was one of the first B2 integrations and I've never
| had problems with it.
| badrabbit wrote:
| Thank you. I was going to explore usage if R2 or B2 for
| elasticsearch "cold-index" storage. R2 seems more ideal for
| better egress.
| mayli wrote:
| B2 is really good for backups, other providers like scaleway
| has similar price if not cheaper.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| Do remember that Cloudlfare's CDN is not meant to serve non-
| webpage content. They outline it in their ToS; section 2.8
| here: https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/
|
| It is unlikely that this same restriction would apply to R2.
| badinfo wrote:
| Their CEO was on here the other day and said it doesn't
| apply to R2 or Workers, and that they needed to update
| their TOS:
|
| > (eastdakota) That limitation doesn't apply to the R2
| service or Workers generally. We'll update and clarify our
| ToS. Thanks for flagging!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28683255
| djbusby wrote:
| What blows my mind is that folk put Cloudflare in front of their
| AWS stack. Does one really need both?
| judge2020 wrote:
| This is often a business decision. Cloudflare's bandwidth is
| free, and with smart tiered caching my operation serves 6TB a
| month while only paying out 125gb of AWS egress (with extremely
| hot files).
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| Well, the currently most used paradigm for building web is that
| you see the edge servers as your classic web servers and then
| see the cloud as a service layer. Good for security and
| scaling. Maybe you can achieve the same thing within AWS.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| Amusingly, I really never enjoyed playing chess, but have always
| enjoyed Go.
| azemetre wrote:
| You should look up a game called Hive. I like to think of it as
| a "modern" chess. Games typically last 10-30 minutes and has
| just as much complexity and strategy (in my opinion) as chess.
| bsedlm wrote:
| When thinking about how China came to dominate all manufacturing,
| it makes me wonder if China was playing Go and rest of the west
| was playing chess
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I always imagined it was because China could pay their
| employees scraps and didn't care about workplace safety.
|
| No idea if that's accurate or not, though.
| [deleted]
| gafferongames wrote:
| ... and Google created an AI that beats them both.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| [Meta]
|
| I _love_ the custom scrollbar. Works seamlessly, and the chunky
| look is cool.
| yobert wrote:
| It is cute. Wish it worked in firefox though!
| mayli wrote:
| Yeah, I could borrow that in my next website.
| ameminator wrote:
| This guy definitely plays go - although I hope that screenshot
| from KGS was someone else's game.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| The chess/go analogy is so weak it's misleading.
|
| The claim is that Amazon competes on a per-service basis, while
| CloudFlare is competing by flanking with related services.
|
| It doesn't really make sense.
| Kalanos wrote:
| Amazon prides itself on the "race to zero cost" as a way to beat
| competitors. AWS will release a service with feature-parity at
| the same price and customers will default to that. so cloudflare
| is learning to play checkers poorly.
| Kalanos wrote:
| Additionally, that AWS service will work with cloudtrail,
| cloudwatch, IAM, networking, and will get integrated into
| default APIs. Checkmate.
| FunnyLookinHat wrote:
| > So while AWS has 17 ways to run containers and 7 ways to do
| async message processing, all overlapping and reinforcing and
| supporting each other, Cloudflare will tend toward introducing
| singular primitives, stuff them in a box, and try to ship those
| boxes to as many places as will possibly take them. If they could
| install Cloudflare on your mobile phone, they would (this gets
| them dangerously close to being a real life Pied Piper).
|
| I think this statement resonates with me the most - it feels a
| lot like how I prefer to design systems (ahem, thanks Unix!):
| simple pieces or types, chained together into systems that are
| easy to understand, maintain, and scale.
|
| We're still only using Cloudflare's workers and it's integration
| with caching, but it's getting close to the point where I'd have
| enough primitives to ship some of the functionality of our system
| architecture to Cloudflare and gain a net-win for latency and
| simplicity.
| justicezyx wrote:
| > AWS has 17 ways to run containers and 7 ways to do async
| message processing, all overlapping and reinforcing and
| supporting each other, Cloudflare will tend toward introducing
| singular primitives, stuff them in a box, and try to ship those
| boxes to as many places as will possibly take them.
|
| Actually AWS also "tend toward introducing singular primitives,
| stuff them in a box, and try to ship those boxes to as many
| places as will possibly take them."
|
| It's just that AWS covers such a larger terrotery, that they
| appear fragmented.
|
| This is why I now almost don't read this type of macro-analysis
| articles. They themselves lack the overall birds-eye view,
| because they are usually produced by people with little
| concrete technical background.
|
| They often is very good at producing analogy, which is very
| intuitive, but very easily breakdown after moderate amount of
| details.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| Cool. When you chose CloudFlare, did you also look at Fly.io?
| jollybean wrote:
| They are not in the same business. Most of AWS is Big Corps
| putting their IT stuff onto EC2s.
|
| We're seeing the cloud grow and naturally evolve into different
| pieces.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Great writup and I love the Go vs. Chess metaphor (I am an avid
| Chess and Go player, including taking lessons from a South Korean
| Go Master).
|
| I feel a little guilty using so many free Cloudflare products,
| while paying them only a small amount of money for occasional
| upgrades.
|
| If I were building a serverless based startup, I would seriously
| consider them over GCP or AWS.
| antifa wrote:
| > The big 3 clouds are playing Chess, but Cloudflare is playing
| Go.
|
| I think most lay people don't know the nuances between chess
| and go and would presume that chess is the more advanced game
| based on superficial first impressions. Probably not a good
| metaphor because I don't know the author's opinion on the games
| and most people will probably see the title and interpret it in
| opposite ways. Using "3D chess" instead would have been a more
| clear metaphor.
| lowbloodsugar wrote:
| Well, they are competing for same market, so whatever game it is,
| it's the same game. Perhaps it's Fluxx [1], a game where you can
| change the rules. Perhaps, from the authors perspective it is
| fight to the death, and AWS is infantry lines against Cloudflare
| guerrilla warfare.
|
| But isn't it simply that Cloudflare is following the disruptors
| handbook? And therefore isn't AWS most likely fully aware of what
| Cloudflare is up to and what the avenues (revenues) for attack
| are, rather than bumbling around playing the wrong game?
|
| [1] https://www.looneylabs.com/games/fluxx
| dflock wrote:
| Cloudflare are very smart - and they have Second Mover Advantage.
| jpgvm wrote:
| Sandstorm lives on. :)
|
| s/grains/durable-objects/ etc but hey, it's still all here.
|
| Would love to get a blog post or talk on the journey if you are
| lurking kenton.
| tiagod wrote:
| Sandstorm's founders Jade Wang and Kenton Varda work at
| Cloudflare
| kentonv wrote:
| https://twitter.com/KentonVarda/status/1443242614329946118 :)
| jpgvm wrote:
| Self-hosted worker and object nodes? Fine grained placement
| policies? Now we are talking. :D
| ryukafalz wrote:
| Yeah, though durable objects are a great idea I do wish they
| weren't proprietary. I hope they get enough traction to spur
| the development of a self-hostable FOSS competitor though.
| (Ideally one that's interoperable with it!)
| judge2020 wrote:
| If it helps, the concept is super-simple and reimplementing
| such a service won't be hard if anyone tries to make it
| interoperable with Workers. Miniflare (a dev environment for
| Workers) implements it in just over 200 loc[0], with the only
| backend beint Workers KV for data storage (<500 loc if you
| count that).
|
| 0: https://github.com/cloudflare/miniflare/blob/master/src/mo
| du...
| nextaccountic wrote:
| But, does Cloudflare gives back control to the user? (like
| Sandstorm does)
|
| I think the spiritual successor of Sandstorm is Tim Berners-
| Lee's Solid https://solidproject.org/ that was recently cited
| in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28903601
|
| But, while Sandstorm is all about compartmentalizing access to
| data in a single server, having the document (grain) as its
| unit, Solid does this with multiple servers (called pods)
| kentonv wrote:
| Solid is a very different approach from Sandstorm. I wouldn't
| call it a successor.
|
| Sandstorm gives the user control over both data and compute
| -- users install apps on their personal server, like
| installing apps on their phone. Solid focuses on data,
| specifying standardized storage interfaces and formats, but
| still expects compute will take place on machines controlled
| by the developer.
|
| I think Solid's approach is unrealistic. Developers want to
| choose their storage formats and technologies. Even
| developers that fully support users controlling their data
| are not going to want to bind their hands to standardized
| formats that don't support the unique features that the
| developer wants to implement, or standardized database
| interfaces that don't meet the app's specific usage model.
|
| Also, no developer wants to have to access data across the
| internet from potentially-unreliable servers on the other
| side of the world.
|
| So I think realistically the code and data have to stay
| together; the developer has to be able to specify both the
| code and the data format.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| Not only that, Solid goes all-in on ACLs vs. Sandstorm's
| capability model. It adds a lot of unnecessary complexity.
| jpgvm wrote:
| Fair. Sandstorms technical ideas are well represented in
| Cloudflares product lineup now but not yet it's philosophy.
| Maybe some of that will change some day. I wasn't aware of
| Solid, going to check it out!
| liveoneggs wrote:
| akamai has had Netstorage ~forever so I wish I understood why
| this cloudflare product is such big news. AWS is just so much
| more
| notyourday wrote:
| Akamai netstorage was/is expensive, requires a contract and
| interacting with inept, overpaid and rather useless sales
| people and sales engineering that insist on coming to your
| office to yap about their awesomeness a-la IBM, and is a part
| of CDN which is also expensive and also requires a contract
| with more sales people and sales engineers that insist on
| coming to your offices to yap about their awesomeness.
|
| I cannot wait until someone finally puts Akamai out of its
| misery -- they stopped being an innovative company in 2000s.
| cryptonym wrote:
| Not the first feature to fall in that category. I do not think
| it's that big for the industry overall. Cloudflare is better at
| PR / more visible than Akamai.
|
| It might be interesting for markets where Akamai is not really
| competing (low budget?). S3 compatible API also is a plus.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| yeah I also seem to remember being able to deploy a JAR file
| directly to akamai in the early 2000's as well, although we
| never tried it for production
| pqdbr wrote:
| I could answer your question a thousand different ways but, to
| be concise, go to akamai.com and find me the pricing of any
| service they sell.
| herostratus101 wrote:
| "In Chess, you win when you take the King, which in effect has
| infinite point value, and it is relatively uncommon to come to a
| draw."
|
| Great article, but this guy clearly does not follow competitive
| chess. The vast majority of games end in a draw.
| minkzilla wrote:
| You also don't "take" the king. The game ends one turn before
| you would be able to take it.
| sharmin123 wrote:
| How to Protect Your Privacy And Personal Data from Hackers?:
| https://www.hackerslist.co/how-to-protect-your-privacy-and-p...
| netcan wrote:
| The differences between web2 disruption and web3 disruption
| strategy games is like the difference between robin hood and
| bladerunner.
|
| Google went _public_ @ $20bn and the papers were full of stories
| about Googlers getting filthy rich. Now bloggers casually comment
| on scrappy $10bn incumbents and the possibility of integrating a
| literal currency mint. web 4 is gonna be a bastard.
|
| I wish douglas adams was still around to explain this all to us.
| [deleted]
| daxfohl wrote:
| I think much of the same could have been said for Heroku and its
| ecosystem. They tried a few critical services and plugins for
| everything else. It works great for some things, but not the
| enterprisey ones that are actually the profit cows.
|
| To win this game, surrounding territory is not enough. You have
| to go for the king.
| agomez314 wrote:
| Can someone share a link that describes Clay Christensen's
| thought or analysis on his management style? Watching Prince
| explain the Innovator's Dilemma piqued my interest
| mattferderer wrote:
| He has written for Harvard Business Review for decades -
| https://hbr.org/search?N=516164&Ns=publication_date%7C1&Ntt=...
|
| I believe some reviewers of his book say that the book is his
| HBR writings organized into a book. In case you're not aware
| there is the actual book Clay wrote as well -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma
| fmajid wrote:
| No, AWS is playing Monopoly.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| If that's what they're playing, they're doing a mediocre job of
| it. They should be forcing Microsoft and Google to rent their
| cloud services, then using high rents there to force them to
| sell their own cloud services to Amazon. Not likely to work out
| for them there.
|
| But, to your point, I'm sure they would if they knew how.
| judge2020 wrote:
| I'm sure they all have some amount of critical backups on the
| other cloud providers' services.
| discodave wrote:
| This is actually a great way to think about it for a number of
| reasons.
|
| 1. Look up what James Hamilton (AWS Distinguished Engineer) has
| been saying for _years_ about commodity _economics_ disrupting
| things. It 's about the money, stupid.
|
| 2. The way AWS has been building out their ecosystem is
| following a lot of the previous monopolists (Microsoft)
| playbook. Get other companies to be 'partners' in your
| ecosystem so they depend on your platform? Check. Training and
| certification so technologists are tied to your platform?
| Check, and so on.
|
| 3. Amazon and AWS are usually never playing the game people
| think they are. For example, all the years that people
| questioned Amazons profits, they were doing their best to
| _hide_ profits with massive R &D & other investments.
|
| In the case of CloudFlare attacking AWS network/bandwidth
| pricing, it's worth pointing out that >60% of AWS revenue comes
| from EC2!!!! S3, and CloudFront is (relatively) small fries.
| lmilcin wrote:
| There isn't any particular reason why Amazon might not decide one
| day to copy Cloudflare as one of their services.
|
| And then all clients of Cloudflare that are also AWS clients will
| switch to AWS for the same service, same cost, but one less
| headache.
|
| On the other hand, Cloudflare is unable to copy AWS business
| model.
|
| So, revised title: "AWS is playing chess, Cloudflare is playing
| Go on a board and time borrowed from Amazon"
| paxys wrote:
| AWS doesn't need to copy Cloudflare. It already has literally
| everything Cloudflare does in their catalog already. In spite
| of this Cloudflare is still attracting customers at premium
| prices.
| maxk42 wrote:
| There is one: Cloudflare isn't profitable.
|
| Cloudflare is still in growth mode: They're losing money hand-
| over-fist. AWS, on the other hand, is a money-printing machine.
|
| Personally, I don't trust Cloudflare until they achieve
| profitability. They're going to have to raise their rates one
| day, and alienate the majority of their customers.
| mayli wrote:
| Probably not really losing money, depends on the cost of
| bandwidth. Since CF has purchased tons of pipes, it doesn't
| cost them that much to feed slightly more traffic into it.
| asim wrote:
| I'm a huge cloudflare fan. Massive advocate for them but when I
| do see this talk of them as a new kind of cloud platform I cringe
| a little. Are we going to under go the same lock-in like
| experience we've had over the years by using very bespoke closed
| sourced systems like workers and durable objects. It's one thing
| to buy into something that does have wide portability like a
| postgres but much harder to buy into the platforms that aren't
| open source.
| lugged wrote:
| Fan of what exactly?
|
| I thought they were great and had them in front of all my
| sites.. til I tested the SEO impact and removed it from every
| single site.
|
| The perf enhancement was minimal at best, the added costs and
| complexity overhead simply wasn't worth it.
|
| Tried their DNS too, 8.8.8.8 was faster for my network.
| brian_herman wrote:
| 8.8.8.8 is google do you mean 1.1.1.1?
| croes wrote:
| He said Google's DNS is faster.
| jessaustin wrote:
| _...til I tested the SEO impact..._
|
| Any speculation on what could cause this? Do search engines
| prefer some IP ranges?
| cryptonym wrote:
| I you don't leverage performance related features of a CDN
| (mostly cache), it's more a security layer. It won't improve
| performance until you get your hands dirty or ask a
| professional to tune it for you (and maybe you did).
|
| A global DNS resolver may decrease performance, for instance
| it can give poor results on DNS based load balancers.
|
| Interested to know how you assess SEO impact and your
| findings.
| schnebbau wrote:
| If you don't set up the caching correctly then loading will
| be slightly slower. If you do, then it will be noticeably
| faster.
|
| Anecdotal of course, but the performance boost lead to an
| easy SEO jump for our sites.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Your experience is a bit unusual. We saw measurable
| improvement from edge caching. Argo routing gave us about
| 200ms back on TTFB where we thought it was worthwhile. We
| could of course set up our own edge caching with another
| provider (we also use Cloudfront a lot), but that doesn't
| make Cloudflare bad for providing the same service.
| Similarly, Cloudflare isn't bad if they provide a fast DNS
| alternative to Google's fast DNS--and the mix of features
| isn't identical.
| atonse wrote:
| What's the SEO impact with CloudFlare?
|
| Isn't that a potential massive conflict of interest if Google
| is reducing the SEO ranking of sites hosted on their
| competitors' platforms?
|
| If so, yet again, I can't wait for the US DOJ and FTC to just
| rain hell on these people.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Maybe at some point there were crawlers that assigned spam
| reputation on a per-IP basis, but so much of the internet
| these days goes through Cloudflare and other CDNs with
| shared IP ranges that it would be insane to keep this
| practice up.
| lugged wrote:
| Maybe 2-3 years ago. Pretty sure it was IP based. CF
| drops you on a shared IP, its hit and miss of you end up
| on an IP next to a bunch of dodgy sites or not, do a
| reverse IP lookup to find out what else is running on
| your IP.
|
| > It would be insane to keep this practice up.
|
| What's the alternative?
|
| Oh yea, did CF ever fix the domain hijacking issue for
| deleted sites?
| judge2020 wrote:
| The SEO impact is negligible at best unless you have it set
| up to specifically block crawlers (or you just forget about
| crawlers when configuring rules).
| pwinnski wrote:
| Do you cringe more or less than right now, when Amazon
| dominates all the markets CloudFlare is trying to enter except
| one?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I am confused. What would you like about CF that needs to be
| open sourced? Is it the front end? The datacenter operations
| software? Their algorithms? How would that solve the problem of
| portability? If there is anything to cringe, it is emotional
| appeal to OSS without thinking it through. Cloudflare is a
| massive service provider, not a database engine. OSS has a huge
| significance in basic building blocks of software - things like
| openssl lib.
| winternett wrote:
| Cloudflare needs to innovate more in order to properly be in a
| position to do long-term battle with Google and AWS.
|
| Their overhead cost is a concern. As a free service provider to
| many sites that use them for encryption, they're possibly
| primarily benefiting (CDN-Wise) from Google's encryption
| assertions made in Chrome.
|
| A few well-publicized system outages for CloudFlare right now
| would devastate their entire business model... It's happened.
|
| In order to be independently competitive truly, Cloud Flare
| would need to probably quickly develop a new mobile phone OS,
| web browser, and scale their cloud hosting to market prominence
| very quickly in order to be able to preserve their current
| market share over the long term, which is a very very steep
| mountain to climb right now.
|
| It's a very steep mountain to climb, because Google already has
| the aforementioned things in place, and AWS is firmly embedded
| with customers that don't want to face huge costs in
| refactoring apps.
|
| CloudFlare needs to battle Google on many fronts to gain a
| proper foothold. If I was in leadership, I'd recommend a
| partnership with a struggling mobile phone company like RIM or
| Nokia, and possibly with Mozilla on the browser front.
| Reassuring users about and being committed to upholding
| personal privacy would be another solid move, and then getting
| rid of the "utility metered" approach to charging for cloud
| hosting and introducing simple monthly and annual rates with
| easier services would likely be ideal moves to ensuring proper
| growth and market share into the future.
|
| This is the chess game that wins from my perspective... As
| companies like AWS and Azure develop more and more micro-
| service and licensing-locked cloud platform apps, it becomes
| harder and much more costly for those same customers to migrate
| anywhere else like CloudFlare. This is also why competing with
| giants is a dangerous game. CloudFlare would need to put a lot
| on the line to compete.
|
| The smartest hosting customers often stay liquid in terms of
| which platform they can leverage and migrate to through chess
| in development, but the process of getting locked into one host
| platform is now a very real threat. Overall success has always
| been a chess game to me. Informed and carefully planned
| strategy, and conservation of resources, always works best.
| streetcat1 wrote:
| Last time I recall, AWS nor Gcp nor Azure are open source.
| dfdz wrote:
| > when I do see this talk of them as a new kind of cloud
| platform I cringe a little. Are we going to under go the same
| lock-in like experience we've had over the years
|
| I don't understand your argument. A relatively small but
| innovative company is working to provide competition against
| the big 3 cloud providers ... and you cringe?
|
| Even if their service turns out to be more or less a S3
| replicate with better pricing (for some applications involving
| a fixed amount of data that needs to be widely distributed)
| it's a win for consumers and innovation
| nuerow wrote:
| > _I don't understand your argument. A relatively small but
| innovative company is working to provide competition against
| the big 3 cloud providers ... and you cringe?_
|
| Cloudflare is by no means a small hosting provider. By some
| accounts, cloudflare is world's leading CDN provider by a
| long margin, far ahead of AWS in this market, and it
| currently piles up about half a billion dollars in revenue.
|
| https://blog.intricately.com/2020-state-of-the-cdn-
| industry-...
| dfdz wrote:
| Amazon market cap 1.732T
|
| Google market cap 1.89T
|
| Microsoft market cap 2.289T
|
| Cloudflare market cap 55.86B
|
| Who do you expect to provide competition to
| Amazon/Google/Microsoft for egress pricing if not smaller
| company who is a "leading CDN provider" ?
|
| Your comment seems to be justifying why Cloudflare is
| ideally suited to provide competition against the big 3
| cloud providers with its R2 offering ...
| johnday wrote:
| Why would you think that a company's market cap (not only
| the relevant portion of the business, but the entire
| company) is a reasonable marker for how big of a player
| they are inside of this part of the industry?
|
| Heck, market caps at this point are almost entirely
| untethered from reality. {cf. Tesla}
| robocat wrote:
| Market cap is a reasonable proxy measure for how much
| money those companies can bring to bear to win the market
| (especially if losses[1]), should those companies decide
| that competing is a number one priority. Two examples
| from Microsoft: XBox (worked) and Windows Phone (failed).
|
| Revenues or profits in the cloud market for each company
| are mostly a measure of how much they are winning. How
| much they are spending is a measure of how much they are
| trying to compete, and the amount they can spend is also
| dependent on profits in other areas of their respective
| business.
|
| > Heck, market caps at this point are almost entirely
| untethered from reality
|
| Most stocks have some basis in reality, and relative
| value still matters even if you think the whole market is
| in Lala land. The stocks mentioned are not diamondhand
| stocks. Variation in valuation is not hitting two orders
| of magnitude, which is what we have here.
|
| A better measure might be some gross profitability figure
| for each company that measures how much each company can
| pump into competing (expenses), but that is hard to
| calculate, especially for Amazon.
|
| [1] Google Cloud Losses Shrink 59%, Revenue Hits $4.6B
| https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/google-cloud-
| losses...
|
| Edited: added second paragraphs.
| ant6n wrote:
| It seems cloudflare makes about 500M in revenue. So their
| price/revenue is like 100, ouch. The market seems to
| believe cloudflare will do very well.
| thefounder wrote:
| Market cap. has little meaning nowadays especially in
| tech. It's just a pumped-up number. You could talk about
| revenue but that's a different discussion.
| dfdz wrote:
| Revenue for 2020:
|
| Amazon 386B USD
|
| Google 183B USD
|
| Microsoft 143B USD
|
| Cloudflare 431M USD
|
| Similar story ...
| gzer0 wrote:
| Meanwhile, AWS holds 41% of the entire marketspace, with
| $14.8 billion USD in revenues per quarter. Extrapolating
| that a bit, $60 billion USD in revenues... $500 million is
| peanuts compared to this [1].
|
| What Cloudflare is trying to do is remarkable considering
| what they are up against.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/29/aws-
| earnings-q2-2021.html
| nuerow wrote:
| > _What Cloudflare is trying to do is remarkable
| considering what they are up against._
|
| I repeat, Cloudflare is already the world's leading CDN
| provider, ahead of AWS by a long margin. This is not a
| David vs Golias story. At most it's a CDN Golias vs a
| all-in Golias.
|
| It's disingenuous to compare Cloudflare and it's CDN
| offering to AWS at face value based on gross revenue. AWS
| offers everything from build pipelines to satellite
| ground stations, and even provides backup services
| comprised of a big truck with armed guards.
|
| Cloudflare is impressive and very successful, but it's by
| no means a small upstart, specially when it serves a
| market where it eclipse all competitors, including AWS.
| tw04 wrote:
| Perhaps you meant Goliath?
|
| In any case, it kind of is a David vs. Goliath.
| Cloudflare currently employs ~1800 people and has
| revenues of under a billion dollars. They don't qualify
| as a large enterprise by anyone's definition. They aren't
| a 2-man shop but they are very much a David in the
| broader market. Amazon is an absolute monstrosity in
| comparison.
| chucksmash wrote:
| Golias is used in some other languages. See, e.g.,
| http://www.bibliadinamica.comunidades.net/o-gigante-
| golias
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Interesting read!
| didibus wrote:
| I think OP is correct, I'm not sure a judge would say
| that the "market" here is the entire set of cloud
| offerings. If the market is CDN, Cloudflare is the
| current market leader.
|
| I think this is generally how things are seen. For
| example, in the Apple vs Epic lawsuit, the judge said the
| market was "mobile gaming", and that in that space Apple
| was not a monopoly.
|
| Amazon total revenue adds up, but in each of the cloud
| categories they operate in, are they the leader?
| streetcat1 wrote:
| So AWS as well the other public clouds are being dis-
| integrated by small startups - see snowflake for DW and
| now cloud flare.
|
| Note that cloud flare is not fighting against AWS or
| Amazon but only against the S3 team inside AWS.
| lkbm wrote:
| At this point they're competing with CloudFront, S3, and
| Lambda, but it is still a a long ways away from all of
| AWS.
| nuerow wrote:
| > * At this point they're competing with CloudFront, S3,
| and Lambda, but it is still a a long ways away from all
| of AWS. *
|
| Cloudflare's offering does not compete with Lambda at
| all. They have completely distinct usecases.
|
| Cloudflare Workers at best compete with Lambda@Edge,
| which in spite of its name is actually a CloudFront
| feature.
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/edge/
| aynsof wrote:
| I'd say that CloudFront Functions was a closer functional
| fit (and likely created in response to Cloudflare
| Workers). Lambda@Edge, despite the name, doesn't actually
| run at edge locations, but CloudFront Functions does.
| kentonv wrote:
| Cloudflare Workers competes with both Lambda and
| Lambda@Edge. Workers is a general-purpose compute
| platform that happens to run on the edge; it is _not_ a
| platform intended to be specific to things that need to
| run on the edge.
|
| (Disclosure: I'm the tech lead of Workers.)
| nvarsj wrote:
| That report is very misleading. Customer count is a useless
| metric for a CDN. If you looked at total traffic and spend,
| Cloudflare would be dwarfed.
| andrewnyr wrote:
| It is when about 18% of the internet runs through
| Cloudflare.
| motives wrote:
| Source? Assuming you're talking about 18% of traffic and
| not percentage of websites, how do you define what counts
| as traffic in that case? Transfer between AS's? Does
| internal traffic within AS's count? Does traffic between
| entities within the same AS count (e.g traffic from one
| AWS customer to another, or traffic from a Netflix OCA to
| an ISP?) I'm skeptical of any entities ability to fully
| measure the throughput of the internet even remotely
| accurately. The closest estimate you'll likely get is if
| you're a transit provider able to measure data transfer,
| and even then you'll be lucky to extrapolate within the
| correct order of magnitude from that for total global
| inter-AS traffic.
| kazen44 wrote:
| also, what is considered internet Traffic? lots of
| private wan's also exist. which complicates this
| comparison even further.
| jsnell wrote:
| Cloudflare is definitely not the world's leading CDN
| provider. Akamai has 7x the revenue.
| [deleted]
| svnpenn wrote:
| Not really. It's a win for CloudFlare, it's a win for
| capitalism, and yes, it's a temporary win for consumers.
|
| But two years from now CloudFlare could be doing the exact
| same stuff Amazon is doing now, and customers are locked in
| again, because no source code.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Let's be realistic: capitalist organizations should not
| ever care about source code more than they care about
| getting money from customers. When you _can_ share code,
| you do (because "open source" has been a marketing ploy
| for years now), but when it conflicts with making money,
| you don't. If they need to lock-in customers to make cash,
| they will, and if they find themselves a monopoly, they
| _definitely_ will.
| [deleted]
| 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote:
| > But two years from now CloudFlare could be doing the
| exact same stuff Amazon is doing now, and customers are
| locked in again, because no source code.
|
| I hear this argument often but it always rings hollow.
|
| A friend had a first gen iPod - when he wanted to switch,
| he discovered that the music he bought on iTunes couldn't
| be moved anywhere else because of DRM. That's lock in.
|
| But this morning I was looking at the source code of an app
| built against the Serverless framework[1] and what I'm
| seeing is a bog standard WSGI application that uses a
| library to transform the inbound AWS "proprietary bits"
| into WSGI[2]. I'm not worried about lock-in there because
| all API Gateway + Lambda do is "translate an HTTP request
| into a JSON object and toss it to an app"[3] - what source
| code am I missing? The underlying Lambda/APIGW code? OK,
| but do I _need it_ to run it myself? Not really.
|
| Many - most? - AWS products tend towards this analysis. S3
| is so locked in that, what, we now have multiple very high
| quality alternatives that are API compatible?
|
| The real risk of cloud vendor lock in, from where I sit,
| comes from egregious pricing models that make it cheap to
| get data in & expensive to push data out. But I'm not sure
| Cloudflare has the juice to make this play work: egress
| pricing is essentially free money for AWS, so they've got
| lots of room to cut costs there - from what I've heard from
| people who negotiate _real bills_ with AWS, they 're very
| happy to give you discounts there.
|
| [1]:
| https://github.com/serverless/examples/tree/master/aws-
| pytho...
|
| [2]: https://github.com/logandk/serverless-wsgi
|
| [3]: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/develope
| rguide...
| [deleted]
| mcherm wrote:
| These are not applications, they are services.
|
| Which means that the REAL question isn't whether they open-
| source the code (not saying it wouldn't be nice... but it
| may come with lots of dependencies about their environment
| that wouldn't be easily replicable elsewhere) but whether
| their API is open.
|
| And in the case of R2, they mimicked the API for S3. Which
| is as close to "following a standard" as I think it's
| possible to get.
| turk- wrote:
| This comment doesn't make any sense. I don't see how
| Cloudflare publishing the source code to their own hosted
| s3 service would help prevent lockin when an open source
| alternative to s3 is out there with hdfs. While s3 is a
| proprietary system, Any programs you write to operate
| against s3 can also easily be migrated to other object
| stores (Azure ADLS, Google Object store) with relative
| ease.
|
| The thing that keeps people locked into s3 are
| egress/bandwidth cost. Until Cloudflare came along, no
| hosted object store (Google,Azure, including self hosted
| HDFS onprem or in the cloud) had economical
| bandwidth/egress costs.
| cybernautique wrote:
| This is actually one of those instances where I'm not sure
| how open sourcing a product would make it freer. Don't
| cloud providers make their dime by what-they-have, i.e.
| your data, instead of what-they-do (i.e., the source code)?
| As far as I understand, it's the prices of ingress vs
| egress that act as the mortar in these particular gardens.
|
| Like if Facebook went full open-source... how does that
| help, if they retain sole custodianship of my data?
| boringg wrote:
| How does an additional S3 replica with better pricing help
| the market/innovation except adding one more competitor? And
| if that's all they end up offering (as per your statement)
| their cost is to high.
| prepend wrote:
| > except adding one more competitor?
|
| This is a really good reason. More competitors is good for
| me.
| arcbyte wrote:
| I mean competition overall is a great thing. Personally I
| wouldn't bemoan disruption of Google et al by Cloudflare.
|
| That said, I remember when I was rooting for Google against
| Microsoft and Amazom against Walmart. Before my time people
| rooted for Microsoft against IBM.
|
| Sometimes we want things to become a little more timeless
| like Linux or HTML where it is democratized and much freer
| and slower to chamge.
| turdnagel wrote:
| On the one hand, I hear what you're saying. You root for
| the underdog long enough and they end up becoming the
| dominant player with the power to match. But this feels
| like a pretty apples-to-oranges comparison to me.
|
| Cloudflare has to buy, operate, and maintain huge amounts
| of servers with lots of hard drives, plus all the
| fiber/copper connecting them across the planet. Linux and
| HTML are software. They're only "decentralized" in the
| sense that they don't physically exist anywhere the way
| that a cloud provider absolutely must.
| Lutger wrote:
| Cloudflare is still software. We consume these services
| by writing code after all.
|
| Another example would be postgres. I can rent postgres,
| including whatever hardware is used to power it, from
| AWS, GCP or Azure. Or anybody really, like DigitalOcean
| or Heroku.
|
| My 'postgres' code will run on every vendors service. The
| same applies to containers.
|
| That is how I understood the comment 'Linux and HTML',
| something that is standard and universal, that affords
| portability and let's vendors compete on quality rather
| than relying on vendor lockin.
| turdnagel wrote:
| Yes, CloudFlare has software, and I think that only
| further highlights the difference between a complex cloud
| provider and a piece of software. What good is
| CloudFlare's software without the vast global network to
| back it up? Pick a problem, though, and there's probably
| an open source solution though: CockroachDB for global HA
| dbs, there's a bunch of containerized drop-in S3 API
| replacements, etc. But something tying them all together
| requires a lot of ops work that you don't get through
| software alone.
| karlerss wrote:
| The portable thing coming out of this is S3. Your S3 code
| runs on multiple vendors (and locally, with some hassle)
| too!
| yholio wrote:
| Is there something that is fundamental to the cloud that
| promotes vendor lock-in? I can understand it from operating
| systems and retailers.
|
| But is there some fundamental obstacle that prevents most
| cloud services to be delivered by commodity RFC-compliant
| vendors? Or maybe some glue software layer, that, once you
| purchase a license, can abstract away the actual provider
| and make it simply a price decision?
|
| I understand the providers will fight tooth and nail
| against commoditization, but once the initial wave of
| innovation and savage competition has passed, do they have
| a fundamental tool to prevent it?
| jimbokun wrote:
| > That said, I remember when I was rooting for Google
| against Microsoft and Amazom against Walmart.
|
| Those were concrete improvements for customers. Better
| products and pricing and convenience vs. the incumbents.
|
| So if new companies can do the same thing to Google and
| Amazon, all the better.
| kortilla wrote:
| > A relatively small but innovative compan
|
| Cloud flare is massive in internet impact and is a publicly
| traded corporation worth billions. There is nothing small
| here.
|
| > ... and you cringe?
|
| Of course, the end game is exactly the same for cloudflare. A
| proprietary solution that locks you into their platform
| instead of AWS's or GCP's.
|
| Oh how people have forgotten was open source was about in the
| 90s and 00s.
| FunnyLookinHat wrote:
| > It's one thing to buy into something that does have wide
| portability like a postgres but much harder to buy into the
| platforms that aren't open source.
|
| I tend to feel the same as you - preferring portable solutions
| that I can host anywhere. However, the reality that we're all
| building CI/CD pipelines as much as we are actual software
| nowadays, and moving those from one cloud provider to another
| is no small feat. Even if you're using some infrastructure-as-
| code tool to manage all of your resources (e.g. terraform), you
| can't really `SET TARGET=GCP` and re-run the script (so to
| speak).
|
| I guess the lesson is: spend as much time picking your
| infrastructure provider as you do your core technical stack.
| They're not easy to replace! :-)
| gls2ro wrote:
| Great point about CI/CD pipelines being hard to move between
| cloud providers. I wish someone will do for CI/CD what
| Docker/k8s did for cloud deployment and provide a non-
| proprietary structure that can be easily transferred.
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| We are building that layer for CI at Earthly.
|
| But, depending on your use case, you could also try to
| describe your build process is some combination of make
| files and dockerfiles and then just call that from whatever
| CI you are using.
| forty wrote:
| First time I discovered earthly I found it looked cool,
| but then I encountered the issue that it needed
| privileged docker which is not really practical in our
| setup, as this would require launching one VM per build
| job (we are using gitlab CI)
|
| Is it still an issue? If yes, any plan to lift this
| limitation?
| adamgordonbell wrote:
| It is a limitation we want to lift where we can and that
| we are working on. I'd love to hear more about your use-
| case. Email is in profile.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Should've sounded the alarm 15 years ago when S3 was invented.
| asim wrote:
| So the interesting thing, back then I think we were willing
| because of the nascent state of cloud services. We hadn't
| fully bought into any of this because most were still just
| buying hardware or renting servers and building their own
| software. S3 and EC2 were pretty pivotal in the move to this
| lock-in from a pure infrastructure perspective. Luckily s3
| equivalent apis exist on every cloud provider now, its a
| staple cloud service but I think in 2021 as more things
| appear, they should be open source first. The open source
| companies start with that, I think cloud companies should
| actually open source the tech too.
| blacktriangle wrote:
| Honestly you touch one one of the reasons I love Heroku so
| much. I've never seen a service that manages to do so much of
| the heavy lifting for me, but at the same time be 0 lock-in.
| I've helped move 2 apps off Heroku once they hit a point where
| they needed a bit more operational flexibility and there was
| zero work to disentangle them from Heroku operationally. Try
| that with AWS, GCE, or anything else.
| tyingq wrote:
| >by using very bespoke closed source
|
| I don't see that as an issue right now. They are closed source.
| But the workers and key/value apis are (so far) either close to
| native, or very simple in nature. Porting away would be fairly
| straightforward. It may be a space to watch as more features
| roll out.
| dgb23 wrote:
| They're smart about this. It's infrastructure lock-in but not
| at the API/application level, as they are trying to stay as
| close to "just JavaScript with browser API semantics" as
| possible. Deno is a project that does this too. If you know
| service workers and web workers you know Cloudflare Workers. If
| you know JS OO you know Durable Objects (to a degree).
|
| Think about it, the huge influx of web developers that have
| been growing up on just using JS. Look at their docs too. It's
| all very accessible, modern, low friction stuff all while they
| are selling us their infrastructure. And they communicate in a
| technical, programmer friendly way as opposed to the
| business/marketing jargon that we are used to by some of the
| others.
| asim wrote:
| I think when you say it like this it makes a lot of sense.
| I'm not a JS dev, that's not my world, but I do understand
| building primitives for a given audience so if that's their
| target market makes sense. I just think as they try to battle
| AWS and explore wider demographics they're going to need to
| accept some of what that requires. CloudFlare isn't a slick
| brand like many of the startups around today in JS land.
| They're playing a different game as a public company so feels
| like wider adoption is going to require something more.
|
| But saying that, I love when companies push the boundaries
| and CloudFlare are doing that. Conforming to the norms is
| just becoming another boring IBM like machine.
| badinfo wrote:
| What do you mean by "Cloudflare isn't a slick Brand"?
|
| I feel like they're the only cloud company that's been
| doing any real innovation for the last 5-10 years, and in a
| very approachable and affordable way.
|
| What's un-slick about them?
| lewisjoe wrote:
| As much as I like to have something else leading this market
| other than AWS (I hate them for several reasons, but insensitive
| billing plans, cockpit like interface and lock-in services are
| the top ones), I'd also hate to see Cloudflare become another
| AWS.
|
| Are there any tech disruption that will make computing resources
| affordable for solopreneurs/startups as they once used to be. For
| the past decade I've seen a very slow gradual decrease in the
| affordability of cloud computing cost. I trust WASM and WASI will
| have a huge effect in democratizing the market but I'm not sure
| yet.
| mooreds wrote:
| > I've seen a very slow gradual decrease in the affordability
| of cloud computing cost.
|
| What do you mean by "cloud computing cost"? Digital Ocean will
| sell you a VPS for $5/month with 1TB bandwidth included. There
| are tons of hosting providers that offer something similar.
|
| These prices don't seem higher than they were 10 years ago.
|
| What am I missing?
| lewisjoe wrote:
| Yes but try running a couple of servers with a decent amount
| of ram say 4GB and we'd notice how the cost goes exponential.
|
| Point being running a couple of servers with a decent ram and
| a decent amount of storage shouldn't cost 50$. It should be
| say, 7$. I know the ask is too much. Just want to see if
| there'd be any fundamental tech breakthrough to make
| something like this happen.
| BenjiWiebe wrote:
| A Linode VPS with 4GB RAM costs $20/month, 4 times more
| then the 1GB instance.
|
| Dedicated VM is $30/month for 4GB, but that's the smallest
| so can't compare there. But that's only a little bit more
| than the shared vps, so I'd consider it pretty reasonable.
|
| A few years ago I couldn't find a $5/month option. The
| cheapest Linode was $10/month.
|
| _EDIT_ checked Wayback Machine...10 years ago, a 512MB RAM
| Linode cost $19.95 /month.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Hetzner cloud has nodes with 4GB RAM for $5.70. For $40 you
| get a dedicated server 64GB RAM and 2 512GB SSDs and 1
| Gbit/s unmetered uplink.
|
| Servers are incredibly affordable. AWS isn't because they
| don't have to be (giving startups $100k credits and
| coaching them on how to achieve the strongest lock-in works
| well for them)
| Rapzid wrote:
| I'm really, really confused about all the discussion of R2 as if
| it were completely fungible with S3.
|
| Certainly for certain use cases it could be an alternative. Even
| as an adjunct to existing S3 use.
|
| However without IAM integration, bucket events, and etc. there is
| a huge set of use cases where it wouldn't even be a blip on
| peoples radar.
|
| Chess vs Go? Couldn't AWS just lower their prices for egress with
| low to medium(medium for AWS) effort? What am I missing here?
| pierofoti wrote:
| The missing IAM functionality is also what is preventing myself
| moving some services to R2. CloudFlare Workers are not 1:1 with
| AWS Lambda either, yet they have seen significant improvements,
| which likely continue to accommodate for more use cases. I
| suspect R2 will see similar improvements.
|
| AWS having high egress fees is the moat around their business.
| If AWS respond by lowering egress costs then they are opening
| the fort.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Counterpoint: Cloudflare is a poorly run company that is well
| known for paying cheap. They don't have the clout to be a
| successful slavedriver like Amazon, so unless they shape up,
| they're not getting on the level of Microsoft/Amazon/Google.
| tromp wrote:
| Minor quibbles about game remarks:
|
| Contrary to what the article claims, draws in chess are very
| common (on the other hand, they're exceedingly rare in Go, and
| often impossible due to fractional komi).
|
| Sente in Go does correspond to having the initiative, but a move
| that compels a player into a particular follow-up move should be
| called a "kikashi" (forcing move).
| squidlogic wrote:
| This sounds similar to the concept of tempo in chess. A move
| that comes "with a tempo on a piece" is a move that gains a
| tempo by attacking that piece.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Also, the king is never taken in chess. Well, outside of
| variants at least. But that's admittedly irrelevant to the
| article.
| elzbardico wrote:
| I'd even say that when playing black against someone of roughly
| the same or higher level than you, a draw is your goal.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| White's advantage is so small - this is only true at the very
| highest levels of play.
| raziel2p wrote:
| Draws are extremely common in high level play, and statistics
| don't seem to exist for _all_ levels of play, but I 'm willing
| to guess that it's fairly uncommon across all games of rating
| 1600 or higher.
| danielbarla wrote:
| I agree that publicly available large datasets / statistics
| become fairly rare below the 1600, above that level they are
| fairly common.
|
| But anecdotally, I once messed around with a bunch of large
| datasets for the purpose of comparing high-level play to
| lower ones, and the statistics weren't spectacularly
| different. Yes, the results are essentially far more random
| the lower you go (especially below 1800, where play is
| essentially a lot less accurate), but draws are still fairly
| common at the 1600 level. If memory serves, top-level games
| had around two-thirds end in a draw, while at the 1600 level,
| it was basically down to one third. Not what I would call
| uncommon, though certainly no longer the dominant result.
| kmm wrote:
| According to the Lichess opening explorer[0], across their
| ~419 million games, only 5.3% ended in a draw. If you change
| the database from Lichess to Masters however, with a total of
| 2 million games, about 43% end in a draw.
|
| Anecdotally, I'm rated ~1700 and only 2% of my games were
| drawn, and most of those were stalemates.
|
| 0: https://lichess.org/analysis#explorer
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Historically, draw was possible due to both players getting the
| same amount of points ("jigo"), but when playing under most
| popular modern rulesets, fractional komi serves as a
| tiebreaker.
|
| Games can be voided due to a complex ko or superko.
|
| There are modern rulesets with non-fractional komi such as the
| Ing rules (komi = 8.0) where jigo is possible. But under those
| rules, in the case of jigo, black wins... making komi
| effectively the same as 7.5.
|
| For multiple games (e.g.: jubango), a draw can be declared if
| both players win the same number of games.
| rocqua wrote:
| Generally in Go 'draw' does not exist.
|
| The exceptions are non-fractional komi, and the exceedingly
| rare triple ko, which does not technically cause a draw, just
| an infinite game. Which is generally resolved as a 'draw' by
| mutual agreement. There are interesting rule variants to
| exclude the option of infinite games, but they have weird side-
| effects.
|
| I'd feel confident saying that normal go (19x19 japanese rules
| with 6.5 komi) does not have draws.
| ameminator wrote:
| Hey, where's the love for triple Ko?
| aurelianito wrote:
| AFAIK, triple ko games are usually played again, and they are
| extremely rare.
| platz wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_strategy_and_tactics#Sente_...
|
| > A player whose moves compel the opponent to respond in a
| local position is said to have sente (Xian Shou ), meaning they
| player has the initiative; the opponent is said to have gote
| (Hou Shou ). Sente means 'preceding move' (lit: 'before hand'),
| whereas gote means 'succeeding move' (lit: after hand').
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Go_terms#Kikashi
|
| > Unlike sente, though, a move is kikashi when it yields a high
| efficiency in play by forcing the opponent to abandon a course
| of action.
|
| Kikashi seems rather techincal and quite narrow in where it can
| be applied.
| conistonwater wrote:
| Wikipedia isn't very good at explaining go, Sensei's Library
| is much better and has the advantage of being written by go
| players for other go players:
| https://senseis.xmp.net/?Kikashi
| https://senseis.xmp.net/?Sente
| pohl wrote:
| This reads as though the entire chess vs go conceit was meant
| only to bait eyes into making it all the way down to the last
| paragraph, which jumps the shark by dignifying Web3 nonsense.
| noasaservice wrote:
| A different problem is that, at least with federal agencies,
| Cloudflare has a _BAD_ name. Like unbelievably bad. They do have
| a FedRAMP offering as of this year..
|
| But I've been on calls with agencies. Dept heads, executive yuck-
| de-yucks. And we've gotten, "Are you using Cloudflare?" We don't,
| and say so. Resoundingly, we get "GOOD"
|
| We have no clue what the story and history is there. It's bad for
| sure. And nobody will answer _why_.
|
| On the commercial end, this makes sense. But damn, egress from
| the majors _suck_. But that 's roach motel computing...
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Cloudflare's priority is growth. They intentionally take on
| customer risk and technical risk to try to maximize growth.
|
| As a result they incline toward hosting whoever wants to use
| them, and moving fast and breaking things. Neither of these
| align with typical federal govt approach to IT infrastructure,
| which emphasizes reliability and avoiding known risk.
|
| It's just a big personality mismatch, and there's no reason for
| either to resolve it. Cloudflare doesn't need the feds, and the
| feds don't need Cloudflare, at least not commercially.
| RNCTX wrote:
| I'd wager that dept heads and executive yuck-de-yucks by and
| large only know what they heard from other dept heads and
| executive yuck-de-yucks, which is that Cloudflare didn't buy
| into the censorship-by-boardroom-committee plans of the two
| American political parties over the past few years.
| wp381640 wrote:
| Is see this as a positive for Cloudflare
| rocqua wrote:
| I know there was a lot of pressure on Cloudflare to drop
| hosting for 8chan. And it took a long time for Cloudflare to
| budge.
|
| In general, I could imagine there being pressure on those
| grounds against using Cloudflare.
| polote wrote:
| Cloudflare is a CDN. Nobody is going to use them to store their
| data even if they are cheaper. If customers cared about price
| they are already using B2 and B2 is still cheaper than R2.
|
| Cloudflare is not eating anyone. They are just trying to expand
| their TAM. Cloudflare has always been very good at engineering
| marketing, and R2 is another masterclass but it will never eat S3
| d23 wrote:
| > Cloudflare is a CDN. Everyone would readily consider using
| them to store their data since they're cheaper. Customers that
| care about price may have cheaper options, but Cloudflare has
| excellent engineering marketing.
|
| > Cloudflare will be eating everyone. They are trying to expand
| their TAM, and R2 is a masterclass.
|
| Figured I'd throw another overconfident unsubstantiated claim
| into the mix. I was even able to use the same exact points to
| argue the opposite position.
| Joe8Bit wrote:
| Good article, thanks for submiting!
|
| The challenge for AWS is one lots of incumbents have experienced:
| they created a market and it's economics and now they're being
| attacked by the next generation of market entrants who've
| structured their businesses to _specifically_ attack those
| economics.
|
| What's interesting is that challenge can be a really big problem
| for incumbents, as those economics can form a core (very rigid)
| part of their operating model; it can make it VERY hard to
| address without fundamental (read: risky) change to a business.
| There aren't many examples of incumbent businesses doing it
| successfully, as it needs a kind of 'self-inflicted disruption'
| that's very hard to do in large organisations where politics and
| empire building can make it difficult.
|
| If someone could do Managed NAT Gateway next I'd appreciate it!
| whoisjuan wrote:
| > The challenge for AWS is one lots of incumbents have
| experienced: they created a market and it's economics and now
| they're being attacked by the next generation of market
| entrants who've structured their businesses to _specifically_
| attack those economics.
|
| Absolutely. This exactly what Tesla has been doing with car
| industry incumbents. For example, the higher specs versions of
| the Model 3 beat +$100k cars in acceleration, raw power,
| torque, handling, etc.
|
| Incumbents have been selling performance as a high-ticket price
| feature for decades. Traditional brands cannot compete on high-
| performance features against Tesla without cannibalizing their
| ICE offering.
| bboylen wrote:
| Too bad they shot themselves in the foot with the cybertruck
| design. Don't get me wrong I think it's funny/cool that a car
| with that design is out there, but it just won't be able to
| eat up the high-end performance truck market even if it has
| insane torque.
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| Really? Assuming the cyber truck actually ships I think it
| will be crazy popular. It's a very competitive price for
| pretty great truck at least on paper. Sure there is a
| market segment that isn't going to buy anything but an F150
| but they probably aren't going to get a electric car
| anyway. Plus the cybertruck will probably attract as many
| or more hummer/mall-crawler enthusiasts.
| handrous wrote:
| I'm seeing "truck guys" giving a shit about Ford's upcoming
| all-electric truck in a way they didn't about the cyber
| truck, except as a curiosity. I think they screwed up the
| marketing on that in just about every possible way,
| including the name and the design.
| XorNot wrote:
| I'd argue it's because the electric F150 has an actual
| release date and specs designed to take the Cybertruck on
| head first.
|
| Has there been any follow ups on the Cybertruck recently?
| So far it seems like vaporware.
| sitkack wrote:
| The eF150 is going to expand the truck market. Cyberwagon
| is Tesla's Aztek.
| McScrooge wrote:
| Are there any examples of an org creating an internal
| competitor to disrupt external competitors and potentially
| replace itself?
| oblio wrote:
| iPhone killed the iPad.
|
| Netflix streaming killed Netflix DVDs-by-mail.
|
| Azure-cross-platform-support-is-king is sort-of killing
| Windows-only-tools.
|
| It's still super hard to do, but every CEO post-2000 has read
| the innovator's dilemma and you can see that in their
| actions.
| filereaper wrote:
| >iPhone killed the iPad. I think you meant iPod here.
| [deleted]
| htrp wrote:
| Many have tried .... no one has succeeded because internal
| venture innovation is hard.
| oblio wrote:
| Any day now Google Allo, Hangouts, Talk, Chat, Plus, Wave,
| Messages, Voice, Duo, Meet will displace Facebook
| Messenger/WhatsApp! Just you wait!!!
| jhawk28 wrote:
| Apple's products regularly cannibalize themselves.
| badinfo wrote:
| Google had a relatively good chat product, Google Talk. Then
| they invented Google Hangouts, Google+, Wave, Allo,
| Messenger, Meet, and Chat.
|
| Now IRC is dead. Who gets the last laugh, huh?!
| delecti wrote:
| Google Talk evolved into Hangouts which then evolved into
| Chat. It's all one continuous line with a terrible
| marketing strategy. From what I can tell, Meet seems to be
| just a confusing way to access Hangouts video chats.
| PeterCorless wrote:
| You could also argue that Google tried to reinvent Skype,
| Slack, Discord, and a million other chat apps, and they
| cannibalized their own offerings because they were feckless
| and mercurial.
| badinfo wrote:
| Yeah, and also cuz they kinda sucked. 1st-gen iMessage,
| or even old-school Trillian, was loads better than
| Google's graveyard of shitty chat products.
|
| Google had no overarching chat strategy, just threw gobs
| of money and different teams at reinventing different
| spokes of the wheels, never thinking about the cart as a
| whole.
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop creating accounts for every few
| comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is
| in the site guidelines:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
|
| You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to
| be a community, users need some identity for other users
| to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames
| and no community, and that would be a different kind of
| forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&
| type=comme...
|
| Also: please don't post unsubstantive and/or flamebait
| comments to HN. We're trying for a different sort of site
| here.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Netflix streaming killed Netflix by mail.
| jopsen wrote:
| Was streaming cheaper? Or rather didn't streaming have
| higher margins?
| machinerychorus wrote:
| Maybe google does something like this, with their myriad
| services? but then everyone complains about them constantly
| killing off products
| sitkack wrote:
| No they just fracture and kill markets.
| mooreds wrote:
| > If someone could do Managed NAT Gateway next I'd appreciate
| it!
|
| Yes please! Such a useful networking tool, but so expensive to
| run as a managed service.
|
| Yes, you can run your own EC2 instance (searching turned up
| this guide, which looks useful:
| http://evertrue.github.io/blog/2015/07/06/the-right-way-to-s...
| ) but it'd be great to have this run by a cloud provider, yet
| be affordable.
| matsur wrote:
| We (Cloudflare) have got some things cooking here :)
|
| I'd love to hear more about what problems you're trying to
| solve/features you'd like to see besides "cheaper" -- can you
| email me at rustam at cloudflare ?
| outworlder wrote:
| Not OP but I'll add:
|
| AWS can only have a single NAT gateway per
| subnet/availability zone(they are usually added in the
| route table as 0.0.0.0/0). Nat GWs can only scale up so
| much. If we blow past the limits, then the only option is
| to use resources from a different subnet. I realize things
| cannot scale vertically forever, but the fact that one can
| scale horizontally (by adding more NAT GWs in different
| subnets) tells me that there could be an architecture that
| would make this a non-issue to customers.
|
| Also if a NAT Gateway has issues (see the outage on Aug
| 31st) we, the customers, have to figure out how to route
| around it.
|
| In Google Cloud you can (easily) add multiple NAT gateways
| as your requirements grow, while staying in the same
| subnet. Not sure how far one can go (didn't go past 20 Nat
| GWs or so). We still have to worry about that (specially
| since in GCP the number of allowed connections is much
| smaller), ideally we shouldn't have to worry about this
| either :)
|
| Azure does not have the same concept because they are
| bonkers (outgoing traffic goes out of your load balancer
| (?!))
| mooreds wrote:
| This is our major need right now:
|
| https://github.com/FusionAuth/fusionauth-issues/issues/1393
|
| Basically, providing a static IP to some EC2 instance
| traffic so that folks can add an IP to their firewall.
| outworlder wrote:
| A single EC2 instance might not cut it. The AWS Managed NAT
| GW scales up to 45Gbps. They can also support 55k connections
| to a single destination (multiply that by the number of
| permutations on your triple - IP addr, destination port,
| protocol).
|
| If you have single EC2 instance doing the job of a managed
| NAT, another equivalent EC2 instance is enough to max it out.
|
| You may need a fleet of instances if your requirements are
| large. Which means that you have a bunch of operational
| aspects to worry about and the NAT Gateway calculation starts
| to become more palatable (once you start adding the human
| cost of maintaining your own, etc).
|
| Pricing is still outrageous though. AWS has economies of
| scale that we don't.
| bezosjuice wrote:
| Bezos can spin up a greenfield cloud team and specifically
| target the new competition if he needs to.
|
| AWS has nothing to fear making 45 billion last year.
| nhumrich wrote:
| Google cloud has a managed nat gateway.
| treis wrote:
| It does seem like CF is coming in and burning down the market
| instead of capturing part of it. Free is cool for developers
| but not exactly great for profits.
|
| I can see a long term strategy where the next unicorn starts on
| CF and eventually pays them money. But it also feels like the
| big fish will migrate to AWS leaving CF with the cheap clients.
| coenhyde wrote:
| I feel your view of CF is about 4 years old. Combine CF's
| Cloud strategy with their IT/Security offerings (eg
| Cloudflare One), they are effectively building a new layer on
| the internet. Very sticky and hard to replicate unless you
| cover all bases like Cloudflare. Though, it might usher in a
| dark age if they are too successful. They could end up owning
| the internet.
| treis wrote:
| I'm talking specifically about R2 and other offerings where
| they're competing more directly with AWS.
|
| Their other stuff is where you want to be in business.
| Market leading technology that you can charge a premium
| for.
| headphoneswater wrote:
| Free at a small scale sure, my company pays CF a bundle and
| we're not a unicorn
| brightball wrote:
| IMO the services that Cloudflare offers more than justify the
| price when you have even a minimal budget to pay for them.
| jgrahamc wrote:
| _they created a market and it 's economics and now they're
| being attacked by the next generation of market entrants who've
| structured their businesses to _specifically_ attack those
| economics_
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Dilemma-Revolutionary-Chan...
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Did you purposely link to it on Amazon? :)
| netcan wrote:
| This is a good point but... Innovation without disruption
| tends to get underlooked, being less dramatic.
|
| Think of the old auto companies over the years. They start
| off making tractor-like cars. They survive through the cars-
| as-fashion eras, the internationalisation of manufacturing,
| etc. If old auto companies emerging from the 80s were new,
| we'd call it disruptive innovation.
|
| That said, both disruption and innovator's dilemma are real.
|
| The innovator dilemmas also roughly corresponds to stuff
| early economists wrote about. Peak markets. Markets are great
| as they grow. When they reach their terminal size (eg most
| people already own cars), profits go down, stagnation can
| occur. That stagnation, especially if the market declines in
| size, leads to crashes and new paradigms eventually emerge.
| Marxists sometimes take this to a systemic extreme, with
| "peak capitalism" and derivative concepts. On the
| conservative side, you'll find these ideas at the heart of
| austrian business cycle theories and Schumpeter's "creative
| destruction."
|
| The digital economy is cushioned by tremendous potential for
| growth, so far. FB, for example, knows that it's not cool
| anymore. They can just buy whoever is cool.
| Joe8Bit wrote:
| Hah, thanks! My comment was fairly blatantly stealing from
| the book!
|
| It's so interesting from an incumbents internal POV (I saw it
| a few times during my time at McKinsey) as changing an
| organisations economics is often the unstoppable force that
| meets the immovable object of internal politics.
|
| There's a really interesting ongoing example of this in the
| the UK as 'attacker' banks (e.g. Monzo, Starling) challenge
| the economics of incumbents. It's not quite the same, as
| these attackers are removing back-end cost (e.g. branch
| networks) from an already 'free' product (e.g. retail
| banking) but it's meant that big banks are looking at their
| balance sheets and seeing a set of gaping money pits that
| will require fundamental change in their operating models to
| be able to get rid of/compete with.
| losvedir wrote:
| I think the Go philosophy is probably healthier for an economy
| overall. I can't say whether that's really what's going on here
| with Cloudflare specifically, but it's an interesting way of
| framing the discussion. In particular, the thing that catches my
| eye is in the "Territory" section of the post, and the idea that
| in Go it's not "winner take all".
|
| A good Go player won't necessarily beat a less good one by a lot,
| but will consistently take more territory by the end. Or, as one
| of my Go strategy books put it: think about a kid cutting a
| brownie in half to share - they want to give themselves a bit
| more, but if you're too greedy and try to take a large fraction
| of it, mom won't let you and you'll end up losing out.
|
| I like the idea that in the economy, good ideas and good
| companies win more often, in that they get the most marketshare,
| but not necessarily by a lot.
| steve76 wrote:
| Chess player. Go. What are you? A child? Real world is not a
| game. Someone steps to you, drop them, drop them fast and drop
| them hard enough to bury them. What we lack is clarity, exactly
| where we are and who we are dealing with. Russian businessmen
| are known to launch a wave of terror in the face of
| competition, car bombings that blow up post offices and police
| stations. The Chinese just poisoned the world with a bioweapon
| over soybean tariffs.
|
| My advice to Amazon would be next space launch, don't launch
| one, launch a thousand. Build a monster of a launch pad on the
| moon. Anyone bothers you, crash asteroids on them and kill
| their entire country.
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| > think about a kid cutting a brownie in half to share - they
| want to give themselves a bit more, but if you're too greedy
| and try to take a large fraction of it, mom won't let you and
| you'll end up losing out.
|
| We take a slightly different approach in my house. The person
| that divides the treat, gets last pick.
|
| It's very effective at getting the closest to equal
| distribution possible.
|
| The only time it falls apart is when I'm not particularly
| worried, so I haphazardly break the cookie in half and end up
| with 1/4 for myself.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Interesting article, but I have to disagree with the Chess - Go
| analogy. Pieces in chess do not have a fixed point value.
| "Knights are worth 3 points" is merely a heuristic that can be
| moderately useful in an initial assessment of a position...but
| anyone that plays chess knows that the NETWORK matters. A queen
| on the wrong side of the board is worth less than a pawn about to
| promote near the enemy's king; three coordinated pieces are worth
| more valuable than four isolated pieces.
| pwinnski wrote:
| I'm not actually sure this makes the metaphor _less_
| applicable. Network and position matter for both, but the point
| values in Chess serve to describe the relative value of each
| piece in addition to that, while the lack of differentiation
| between pieces in Go means that even _more_ attention must be
| paid to the network and positions. It is not that network or
| position don 't matter in Chess, but that _only_ network and
| position matter in Go.
| sudhirj wrote:
| The article makes no mention of the Cloudflare's enterprise
| networking tools, and its VPN. Cloudflare is basically in a
| position to run the internet for most people to buy into it - I
| have their VPN on my phone and computer, which gets my fast
| access inside their network. By fronting so many of the world's
| websites, a lot (maybe a majority?) of my traffic actually flows
| inside Cloudflare.
|
| Now with Workers, R2, Durable Objects, the server side can move
| to Cloudflare too. If it makes sense to move servers on the
| network where the clients are, then this is where they should go.
| breakingcups wrote:
| That just makes it feel like a proprietary layer on top of the
| internet.
|
| Or, to draw it further into the scale you mention, a single-
| party replacement for the internet.
|
| Neither of these things sound like a long-term win.
| sudhirj wrote:
| No, they're both very short term wins for companies, which
| means they might happen anyway. Cloudflare has demonstrated
| ethical behaviour so far, but that's not enough to trust a
| single part with the internet.
|
| Short of the new age web3 stuff, though, not sure what else
| is a suitable alternative. Competitors to Cloudflare aren't
| as common because of their gigantic moat -- imagine building
| an org that builds out to hundreds of cities around the world
| and partners with thousands of network companies.
| breakingcups wrote:
| Definitions of ethical may differ. Shielding far-right
| sites, cesspits like Kiwi Farms which make it their stated
| goal to drive people they don't like to suicide, criminals
| like DDOS vendors, credit card fraud forums, etc. all under
| the guise of being a "neutral passthrough layer third
| party" feels incredibly disingenuous to me. The
| aforementioned people are Cloudflare's customers and
| Cloudflare hosts their content (yes, sometimes with a short
| ttl, but the public IP address still terminates at their
| web servers). They can not be afforded the same leeway that
| actual internet exchanges are when routing traffic to bad
| actors.
|
| So no. They may have demonstrated business-friendly
| behaviour. But ethical? No.
| swyx wrote:
| hey author here! thanks for posting this, i guess my original
| title wasn't HNbait enough huh :)
|
| happy to take any questions, and yes acknowledged that I dont
| follow pro chess at all, keeping it in there as a reverse
| shibboleth and a reminder that i'm just a rando guy on the
| internet who can be wrong
| agomez314 wrote:
| You brought many fascinating ideas to the table with this
| article. As someone who's seeing this for the first time, and
| adjusting to the paradigm shift you laid out, I'm curious to
| know what was the context which led you to write this article.
| What sort of ideas, resources and events helped you connect the
| dots and express CloudFlare's plan in this way?
| swyx wrote:
| thanks! I worked at Netlify and AWS before my current job at
| Temporal, so:
|
| - I've spent quite some time thinking about how "new clouds"
| compete with Amazon
|
| - I've seen Netlify argue (with mixed results) that its users
| should not put Cloudflare in front of Netlify
|
| - I've had casual chats with Rita and James (mentioned in the
| article) that got me really thinking about what their
| strategy is. I've had "eating the cloud from outside in"
| since the start of the year - the Go analogy only came that
| weekend when I finally sat down to write this thing and R2
| was just freshly out.
|
| - I've listened closely to all of Ben Thompson's stuff
| dadrian wrote:
| Odd that this article suggests that Intel ignored a new
| technology until it was too late in the Apple case, when the
| article that they link to back that claim argues for the other
| style of disruption---low-end product eventually claws up market
| share and performance to compete with the high-end.
|
| The rest of the article seems reasonable, but IMHO and many
| other's opinions is that the Intel/Apple/ARM thing is classic
| disruption from the low end.
| sbazerque wrote:
| I'm thinking there's an interesting parallel between our browser-
| based p2p project [1] and cloudflare workers / DurableObjects.
| Instead of DurableObjects, we got HashedObjects [2], and instead
| of workers running on an edge network somewhere, we got in-
| browser p2p nodes running a browser-to-browser mesh network.
|
| In general, what they do with infra, we do with cryptography &
| datatypes.
|
| [1] Hyper Hyper Space: https://www.hyperhyperspace.org
|
| [2] HashedObject:
| https://github.com/hyperhyperspace/hyperhyperspace-core/blob...
| rsmets wrote:
| I consider Clouflare to be the least reliable cloud service
| provider out there. So many CDN and DNS related outages thanks to
| poor engineering release practices. Considering those are their
| bread and butter services I wouldn't ever rely on any of their
| other services.
| qaq wrote:
| Do they have more outages than AWS or GCP?
| ehPReth wrote:
| Do they?
| scrollaway wrote:
| Cloudflare user for all my services here. I can't remember any
| downtime ever outside of the couple times where they got
| massive press over it (because, like, the whole internet broke)
| SadWebDeveloper wrote:
| Most ppl use CF for toy things they don't test if their
| infrastructure is reachable at all times, but CF fails a lot,
| at least twice a day.
| mayli wrote:
| Yeah, I admit ppl use CF for toy things, but twice a day?
| sause?
| gfosco wrote:
| Enterprise CloudFlare customer here, can't remember a single
| disruption or outage in the last year.
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| It is simply incorrect. We have most of our customers on
| Cloudflare and the larger customers are on enterprise deals.
| My only criticism to Cloudflare is simply that it is just not
| as stellar as some of the more expensive alternatives. It is
| not a high end service but still the right choice for a lot
| of sites.
| ranman wrote:
| The least reliable cloud service provider ... relative to what?
|
| A comparison of historical downtime amongst DNS and CDN
| providers shows this to be an illogical consideration.
|
| I've been using cloudflare for years at both small and very
| large scales.
|
| They have had outages yes, but again, relative to the rest of
| the cloud providers they're doing just fine.
| judge2020 wrote:
| When it happens, it breaks a lot of the internet, but "so many"
| is stretching it - the entire CF network has only gone down a
| couple of times in the time I've known about them (~6 years).
| hunterb123 wrote:
| They went down at least 4 times last year.
|
| Always noticeable as Discord will go down.
| ranman wrote:
| Doesn't discord use GCP?
| judge2020 wrote:
| They extensively use Cloudflare, other than for voice
| channels which don't use CF's tcp/udp proxy (to minimize
| ping, since GCP is usually peered better globally).
| notamy wrote:
| Nitpick: Voice/video is run on dedicated hardware from
| various providers, since GCP networking costs would be
| obscene for that.
| Jamie9912 wrote:
| GCP proxied by Cloudflare, yes
| [deleted]
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Meanwhile, when people think of "Tier 1" AWS services, its
| Cloudflare equivalent, Amazon CloudFront, rarely gets any love,
| and the official AWS Twitter account hasn't tweeted about it in
| almost a year.
|
| In the last couple years, CloudFront has gone from not really
| working to actually working very well. Invalidations are now
| instant, both from the command line and the CLI. You used to be
| unable to customize response headers, but now you can do that
| fairly easily.
|
| Maybe they're not publicly talking about it, but they've actually
| gone and fixed all the major problems.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-18 23:00 UTC)