How the Cloud Has Changed (Since Last You Looked)

snydeq writes: InfoWorld's Peter Wayner takes a look at the new services and pricing models that are making cloud computing more powerful, complex, and cheaper than it was a few short years ago. 'We get more, but using it isn't always as simple as it could be. Sure, you still end up on root on some box that's probably running Linux, but getting the right performance out of that machine is more complex,' Wayner writes. "But the real fun comes when you try to figure out how to pay for your planned cloud deployment because there are more options than ever. ... In some cases, the cost engineering can be more complex than the software engineering."

Comments

But

[Ol Olsoc]

Am I supposed to think there is anything actually good about the cloud changes?

More complicated.

A trend toward moving toward "bare metal" physical boxes for the computing.

Moving to Cell phone company like who the hell knows what is what pricing.

All I know is that it seems just as likely a catastrophe in waiting, and given the state of backdooring, ain't happening if I'm a business, because every detail would be exposed.

Re:Hipster software is the real problem.

[FooAtWFU]

Eh. You're right about things being overhyped but you go too far in the opposite direction. Ruby/Rails is an effective combination for low-volume elevated-complexity latency-insensitive web-based software, the kind you might use internally to your business. Node is a useful tool for quickly writing nonblocking servers (much more useful when they use more than simply HTTP). NoSQL is effective when actually have a ton of data and with the right software (i.e. not Mongo) it can provide guarantees to do everything you want that's also mathematically possible on a data set that large.

But yes, while I like Node in theory, I just wish it wasn't in a freaky language like JavaScript. As for NoSQL... once your problem size is actually legitimately huge then you need to do obnoxious things to make everything work, one way or another, no matter what you do... so it really does pay to avoid it if at all possible (e.g. through clever sharding or the like).

And you're really right about how simple Github is - it almost makes up for the complexity of git itself. Git is a useful and powerful tool that is much nicer than the svn and cvs tools it replaced, and having distributed development available like that is quite effective, but you've actually got to bother to try and learn something about it (otherwise please stick with svn or whatever instead of whining about how a few modestly-cryptic commands and the implications of representing commit history as an immutable DAG are so hard to wrap your head around - this should be undergrad stuff and you've no business passing judgement on entire stacks if you can't grok it).