Lol, just migrate it… Like it’s that simple. Many companies have gotten vendor locked in to specific cloud providers and the services they offer. You can’t just flip a switch and move to Azure or somewhere else. Assuming other clouds even have the capacity to take on all of AWS clients all at once… And it’s not just websites, many government and even military servers are in AWS these days.
Truth. Whenever I’ve asked an enterprise architect whether the company should really be vendor-locked to the point of using proprietary cloud-native services they say it will never matter. Tech workers think in terms of the two or three years they stay in each role.
(Amazon and MS are nothing on the extent to which Oracle owns you if you invite the Devil in.)
I work for Red Hat, we’re doing our best to fight that kind of vendor lock in. Hybrid cloud and expand out to whichever cloud you want. The vendor lock in is serious out there.
All the important military servers are secured. We could do with losing all the PowerPoints with a bad animated mascot telling you that you do in fact have to stop at a stop light.
Them is all of us. Things like Centers for Medicare and Medicaid run in AWS. Just about every service the government provides probably has some piece on AWS. Turning off AWS would not end well.
Well yeah but when they were broken up one of the fearmongering things was the physical infrastructure. There’s no reason to believe this would be any different. Just hopefully with less monopoly a couple decades down the line.
This is a little different than a phone company. But you’re right that breaking them up would be the much more sane thing to do rather than shutting them down. It’s not easy to migrate servers, it is easy to change who you’re paying.
NASA hasn’t done much because they set a specific agenda to try to push “routine” space operations into the private sector, not because they aren’t able to.
It’s not like the companies that do this sprang up and started doing without assurances they would have business.
Saying that NASA hasn’t developed new rocket technology is just absurd. They haven’t built as many low Earth orbit launch vehicles. There’s a difference.
US tank command also hasn’t built many jeeps.
I’m not sure why you saying it’s based on the Saturn 5 like that’s a bad thing. Modernizing a successful design isn’t a bad thing if you’re doing a similar thing.
Literally basic research into differing mechanisms for rocket propulsion. What do you think they do? That took literally 10 seconds to find.
So, you see “old technology” as bad, while people who actually do the work see it as “tested”. What, exactly, do you think they need to change? Do you think they haven’t modernized the components?
If you actually read about it, at all, you can read their considerations on reusability, upfront cost, refit cost, and usage cadence.
Basically, it’s more resource and cost effective to not reuse it.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying with your four attempt thing. Do you think they developed their plans for a commercially viable orbital launch vehicle totally blind of NASA’s plans for commercialization of low Earth orbit? NASA was already doing commercial contracting when SpaceX started.
And you’re forgetting that their first launches were purchased by darpa.
Your last point just sounds like you’re agreeing with me. NASA has been doing deep space rocket development, and leaving routine work to companies. I’m not sure why that’s so disagreeable, considering it’s what they said they were doing, and are very clearly doing.
Yes. We could have had reusable rockets 30 years ago if we funded NASA properly. We chose not to. Now, decades later we got a private company managed by man-children accountable to no one burning billions and billions in play money exploding shit in a manner that NASA would never be allowed to do until they finally, by some miracle, got a reusable rocket, and we’re all acting like “omg how amazing.” Give me a break. Not to mention that now we just have a bunch of trash in space.
But I don’t think it has changed for the better. Private industry can now cheaply and easily put trash in space, and they have been at a stunning rate. Literally nothing good can come of this at all.
This isn’t about Musk. If Bernie Sanders owned SpaceX I’d be saying the same thing. I do not want private citizens to have the power to launch objects into space. Period. Unless those objects are themselves and the target is the sun.
Burn both of those companies down and we won’t lose anything of value (yes, many sites will go down because of aws, but just fucking migrate it)
THANKS IM CURED
Oh boy I needed that laugh
Lol, just migrate it… Like it’s that simple. Many companies have gotten vendor locked in to specific cloud providers and the services they offer. You can’t just flip a switch and move to Azure or somewhere else. Assuming other clouds even have the capacity to take on all of AWS clients all at once… And it’s not just websites, many government and even military servers are in AWS these days.
I guess if nothing else it would create new jobs, that’s important, right?
It would keep me gainfully employed. There would probably be a huge demand for OpenShift and its cloud agnostic design after that.
Truth. Whenever I’ve asked an enterprise architect whether the company should really be vendor-locked to the point of using proprietary cloud-native services they say it will never matter. Tech workers think in terms of the two or three years they stay in each role.
(Amazon and MS are nothing on the extent to which Oracle owns you if you invite the Devil in.)
I work for Red Hat, we’re doing our best to fight that kind of vendor lock in. Hybrid cloud and expand out to whichever cloud you want. The vendor lock in is serious out there.
All the important military servers are secured. We could do with losing all the PowerPoints with a bad animated mascot telling you that you do in fact have to stop at a stop light.
Oh well, sucks to be them!
Them is all of us. Things like Centers for Medicare and Medicaid run in AWS. Just about every service the government provides probably has some piece on AWS. Turning off AWS would not end well.
The physical servers would change ownership and the AWS standard between them would slowly diverge. Same kind of thing as the baby bells.
Do you mean the Bells that have reassembled?
Well yeah but when they were broken up one of the fearmongering things was the physical infrastructure. There’s no reason to believe this would be any different. Just hopefully with less monopoly a couple decades down the line.
This is a little different than a phone company. But you’re right that breaking them up would be the much more sane thing to do rather than shutting them down. It’s not easy to migrate servers, it is easy to change who you’re paying.
Oh well, sucks to be us!
deleted by creator
Nationalize it and roll it into NASA
deleted by creator
NASA hasn’t done much because they set a specific agenda to try to push “routine” space operations into the private sector, not because they aren’t able to.
It’s not like the companies that do this sprang up and started doing without assurances they would have business.
Saying that NASA hasn’t developed new rocket technology is just absurd. They haven’t built as many low Earth orbit launch vehicles. There’s a difference.
US tank command also hasn’t built many jeeps.
I’m not sure why you saying it’s based on the Saturn 5 like that’s a bad thing. Modernizing a successful design isn’t a bad thing if you’re doing a similar thing.
deleted by creator
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/marshall/nasa-validates-revolutionary-propulsion-design-for-deep-space-missions/
Literally basic research into differing mechanisms for rocket propulsion. What do you think they do? That took literally 10 seconds to find.
So, you see “old technology” as bad, while people who actually do the work see it as “tested”. What, exactly, do you think they need to change? Do you think they haven’t modernized the components? If you actually read about it, at all, you can read their considerations on reusability, upfront cost, refit cost, and usage cadence.
Basically, it’s more resource and cost effective to not reuse it.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying with your four attempt thing. Do you think they developed their plans for a commercially viable orbital launch vehicle totally blind of NASA’s plans for commercialization of low Earth orbit? NASA was already doing commercial contracting when SpaceX started.
And you’re forgetting that their first launches were purchased by darpa.
Your last point just sounds like you’re agreeing with me. NASA has been doing deep space rocket development, and leaving routine work to companies. I’m not sure why that’s so disagreeable, considering it’s what they said they were doing, and are very clearly doing.
Every bit of Space X’s business is built on the backs of NASA engineers. They are simply beneficiaries of radicalized privatization of public domains.
deleted by creator
What a joke.
deleted by creator
Yes. We could have had reusable rockets 30 years ago if we funded NASA properly. We chose not to. Now, decades later we got a private company managed by man-children accountable to no one burning billions and billions in play money exploding shit in a manner that NASA would never be allowed to do until they finally, by some miracle, got a reusable rocket, and we’re all acting like “omg how amazing.” Give me a break. Not to mention that now we just have a bunch of trash in space.
deleted by creator
But I don’t think it has changed for the better. Private industry can now cheaply and easily put trash in space, and they have been at a stunning rate. Literally nothing good can come of this at all.
This isn’t about Musk. If Bernie Sanders owned SpaceX I’d be saying the same thing. I do not want private citizens to have the power to launch objects into space. Period. Unless those objects are themselves and the target is the sun.
THEN YOU AGREE that all funding to Space X should be stopped until Musk is purged from leadership.
deleted by creator