(no title)
MSM | 3 years ago
Couldn't agree with this point more, and it's enough to make me prefer Azure. AWS is taking open source tooling and slapping a very thin veneer on top to make it their own. Almost nothing is cohesive or easily integrated. You can ask the same question to three AWS solution architects and get three similar-but-different stacks suggested.
Azure seems to be going the way of solid, simplified, integrations between their tooling (things like Synapse), while AWS is trying to be first to market (or fastest, or cheapest) with all of these individual components.
steveBK123|3 years ago
There isn't exactly clear comparison matrices or design trees on why you would use one service over the other. It really just feels like 100s of different services that were built for different specific end users and then slowly grown into overlapping offerings.
It's worse in big corporate, and especially financial settings as only certain flavors of certain services will get the cyber/infosec blessing. Then you have vendor products you want to use in AWS which only support certain flavors of those same service types as well.
So we end up having to bang heads against walls to actually get internal cyber&external vendor onto same page. If the product touches several service types (containers/storage/database/etc) then you have to make sure they can all be strung together in an approved compatible fashion.
In the old days a vendor could say they support x86 Linux, and you knew you'd more likely than not be able to install their software. Now you have to go many layers deeper than "we support AWS" to understand if its actually going to work or not, sometimes with multi-week POCs.
abawany|3 years ago
visarga|3 years ago
Aeolun|3 years ago