In Three Years, Nearly 45% of All the Servers Will Ship To Cloud Providers 152
dcblogs writes "IDC expects that anywhere from 25% to 30% of all the servers shipped next year will be delivered to cloud services providers. In three years, 2017, nearly 45% of all the servers leaving manufacturers will be bought by cloud providers. The shift is slowing the purchase of server sales to enterprise IT. The increased use of SaaS is a major reason for the market shift, but so is virtualization to increase server capacity. Data center consolidations are eliminating servers as well, along with the purchase of denser servers capable of handling larger loads. The increased use of cloud-based providers is roiling the server market, and is expected to help send server revenue down 3.5% this year, according to IDC."
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So what. Do you have something to hide?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone posts as "Anonymous Coward" don't mean they have something to hide. They may simply not want to open a slashdot account.
Anyway I assume AC was simply making a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
So what. Do you have something to hide?
Would you also accept the following deal: the NSA would have your home key and they could walk in any time and look at various objects?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you don't, then you are just kidding yourself.
Our Constitution evolved in a context that includes things that could be described as "historical abuses" and is thus something that few modern Americans have any ability to relate to.
Human nature doesn't change all that much really.
Re: (Score:3)
Seem like idea of build Private Cloud should start increasing.
What was always taught about security if they have physical access they have you. So with commerical clouds you're giving physical acess to ???????
Re: (Score:3)
The SCOTUS is busy dismantling all of that. Fat lot of good a quaint notion of civics will do you when the supremes decide that well established limits on the power of government are now outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
Fat lot of good a quaint notion of civics will do you when the supremes decide that well established limits on the power of government are now outdated.
I never did like Diana Ross, Now I know why.
Re: (Score:2)
The government itself is outdated. In the Leviathan Hobbes assumes that a commonwealth must be run by a man or a group of men. In our age, decentralized software and protocols like TCP/IP, HTTP, TOR, bittorrent and bitcoin have demonstrated that self-interested parties can cooperate in the absence of a trusted mediator, according to rules that they agree upon in advance (with varying degrees of reliability). Ideally the future will see an increasing number of diverse services that can be provided by dece
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. I don't want the meat industry setting standards for salmonella and fecal coliform bacteria in food stuffs, or trusting Coca Cola and Perrier to provide clean drinking water. American Airlines and Delta are not competent to direct the national air traffic control program and never will be. And I think we've seen what allowing the banking and insurance industries to voluntarily police themselves produce. Government exists for a reason, that reason being that business cannot be trusted to hold the
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have read a lot of things into my comment that weren't there and missed what I did write.
First, I don't think that the absence of an independent, trusted governing entity means the absence of regulation. I tried to give examples of regulated systems organized on a peer-to-peer basis. You're conflating independent governing entities and regulation, which isn't surprising since they are usually closely related, but my point was that latter can exist without the former. In fact, current systems
Re: (Score:2)
What is the purpose of having a regulation if affected parties are not going to be forced to abide by it? It effectively changes from a 'regulation' to a 'suggestion', and we're having enough trouble trying to keep Tyson, Weyerhouser and Pfizer under control as it is. Newt Gingrich's moment of brilliance was when he realized that he didn't have to repeal laws that his corporate sponsors didn't like, all he had to do was reduce or eliminate the budget to enforce the law. Do you honestly think that Nabisco
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations can be voluntary in the sense that they're opt-in and still totally enforceable. Here's the first example I could think of. Excuse me if it's a bit rough. In the case of food safety or quality control, corporations could voluntarily purchase surety bonds [wikipedia.org] or a similar type of insurance payable to affected consumers and submit to independent inspections in a publicly auditable way. If it was common practice, there would be a strong incentive for companies to comply--consumers wouldn't buy produ
Re: (Score:2)
Why does almost every Libertarian solution require thundering herds of lawyers to implement? If Tyson isn't maintaining the sanitary standards on a chicken processing line I'd prefer a bureaucrat tell them "Shut it down, and pay this fine. Can't start it back up until the problems are fixed." The financial impetus of getting back to business will ensure that things get fixed a lot faster then the thought that a few weeks/months down the line some people will die and their survivors will sue, and after a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a Libertarian. Maybe that assumption is why you're arguing against positions that I haven't advanced.
There isn't any reason that inspection can't be done without a government and that is what I suggested above. There's no need to wait for injuries to occur. A surety bond (or a similar arrangement with funds in escrow) doesn't require any lawyers or lawsuits. Relying on the government for arbitration is giving it yet another role to which it isn't suited.
Why do you think that it's a good idea to
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What could possibly go wrong? go wrong? (Score:2)
No you fool! Forget privacy, there's a bigger danger! If these trends continue, we'll upload the last existing server to the cloud and shut down the server, only to realize that the cloud was on servers! THE INTERNET WILL JUST DISAPPEAR!
GOOD ONE. But it's already too late. The last of the content disappeared years ago. Everything is being served from Squid proxies. If you don't believe me check the Last-Modified time on this page. See how it is, like, this very minute? That means there is a coverup in progress.
Goodbye Server Admins (Score:2, Insightful)
[I am a developer not an admin]
It takes us weeks to months to get a new server provisioned and ready for use where I work. We did a MAJOR project years ago with the promise that it would take less than half an hour to do so, but that is never the reality. They put in huge servers with virtualization, a SAN, and everything else they asked for to do this, but they just don't. It has turned our workplace into slow IT because of admins not because of development. We can develop a solution in days and then t
but is PHB's calling the shots are better? (Score:2)
Where some PHB does the buying of your cloud system so you can be stuck with low end systems, small bandwidth , small web space and so on as the PHB picked bob's cheap cloud space.
Re:Goodbye Server Admins (Score:5, Insightful)
As a DevOps minded person who does code and understands hardware very well, Amazon and Rackspace are both a pile of garbage. They run on 4-year old Xeons that have been split 30 different ways. There are major IO contention issues. Snapshots take hours. SSDs cost thousands a month. They lock you into their service by using proprietary standards (e.g. RDS disables external replication). They come with little to no SLA.
Secondly, we've got privacy and security issues to worry about, regulations like HIPAA, PCI compliance, backups, redundancy, failover, documentation and continuity of business planning. We'll probably still be working for the company long after Amazon has gone out of business and the development team has been replaced or quit.
So, please, forgive your admin if he gets upset. A lot of us are in it for the long game and prefer not to shit all over our employer so they can continue to do business in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
SSDs cost thousands a month.
If you're hiring that sort of service on the Cloud for months at a time, you're doing it wrong. The USP of the Cloud is very short hire times, say a few minutes or an hour. When you're hiring for longer periods, other types of service provider can be a better choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno how paying the admins he was complaining about is not continually paying for installation.
and really, if we're realistic, they weren't running realibility tests on it..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the only difference is you are assuming the "cloud" provider has ALREADY DONE THE WORK.
You're not 'assuming' it, you've written it into the contract in the form of SLAs. In most organizations I've worked with, there are rarely SLAs between IT and the departments they support, or, if there is, they are ignored. Not the case with an SLA between a cloud provider and an organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the case with an SLA between a cloud provider and an organization.
I really don't know where you get that idea from. Cloud SLA's are not worth the paper they aren't written on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Cloud SLA's are not worth the paper they aren't written on.
I work for a SaaS company. Our customers hold us strongly to the SLAs. If your providers aren't, then you need a different provider, better lawyers, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like coal (Score:3)
Almost 100% of all coal is shipped to electricity providers. Reliability and Economies of Scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost 100% of all coal is shipped to electricity providers. Reliability and Economies of Scale.
You can buffer a supply of coal and survive a shipping delay
What happens with your Cloud data access during internet outage on either side?
Re: (Score:3)
If Joe's hard drive dies, he's completely screwed unless he has an up to date backup ... in which case he is out of commission until he buys a new disk and restores his applications and data to it.
An "internet outage" is a temporary annoyance until "the internet" is restored and business as usual resumes. In my experience the reliability of "the internet" is almost identical to that of electricity -- "the internet" fails when the local power fails.
Re: (Score:2)
If Joe's hard drive dies, he's completely screwed unless he has an up to date backup ... in which case he is out of commission until he buys a new disk and restores his applications and data to it.
An "internet outage" is a temporary annoyance until "the internet" is restored and business as usual resumes. In my experience the reliability of "the internet" is almost identical to that of electricity -- "the internet" fails when the local power fails.
Joe might lose a hard drive once in every 3 years. An internet outage is a weekly occurrence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Joe is not an idiot, he runs raid. When his hard disk drive dies, he uses the other one until he grabs the spare hot swap one from the cupboard and inserts it in his server. Joe also has a UPS for power control. Basically Joe has found that servers really are pretty cheap now days and managing them is quite easy especially if he supplements that internal management with some external remote management from a reliable local source. HDisks are so cheap the best backup is another newer HDisk than the one you
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon's S3 storage service has never been down. Ever. It has 11 9's of durability for your data, and in the event us-east-1 drops off the face of the earth, your data is still accessible from us-west-2 (oregon) without you having to do anything. From anywhere in the world. All for 9 cents/GB/month. That's a fucking steal of that level of accessibility and reliability.
Re:Just like coal (Score:4, Informative)
Over 92% of the coal consumed in the United States is used for generating electricity.
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/role_coal_us.cfm [eia.gov]
Over 92% is almost 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Approximately 10% of coal produced in the U.S. is exported, which drops that 92% to around 81% (according to the link you provided). That means that only 81% of coal is shipped to electricity providers and while 81% is the clearly the overwhelming majority of coal it is not "almost 100%" as most people use that term.
And if the foreign buyers are electricity producers, then the number stands. Your numbers would be correct if and only if the exported coal is never used for electric production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gartner, IDC they all have an agenda to push (Score:4, Informative)
That agenda is pushing dumbass CIOs into making bad decisions. Cloud Services, Co-Lo Hosting and the services wrapped around them are good tools to have at your disposal but like any tool if you don't know how to use them you can leave your organization high and dry. IDC and Gartner have a vested interest in selling Cloud and their associated third party service vendors to businesses since they're market makers. They're no different that your stock broker calling you up trying to sell a stock that's on their "hot sheets" to drive revenue. Companies pay these idiots for their "research" which is usually some guy sitting down and reading Internet articles and going to conferences where they hear long sales pitches from CSC, Rackspace and Amazon. None of this replaces a good set of people and an Enterprise Architecture strategy that the organization needs to develop and own.
What IDC misses here is two of the big cloud players, Google [wired.com] and Amazon [wired.com], are growing their own servers so IDC's true "insight" should be that HP, Dell and IBM are going to lose server revenue more not from larger bulk deals with cloud providers but the fact that the bigger players are just going to buy components. Also companies aren't writing blank checks to their IT organization anymore. This means those big budget projects where you roll in racks of servers will be pushed more and more to virtualization. There's also the aspect that there are a lot of businesses who will never let their data or their customers data fall into the hands of any third party, even a hosting provider and they will still need servers and disk and products because year after year their existing footprint gets older and you need more capacity and to refresh your infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Everyone's a Cloud Provider these days. (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't have "Cloud Provider" in your services portfolio, you're like, so totally last century. Nobody provides server hosting or IT services these days. Everyone does cloud, man. The same old IT department at your employer is now a Cloud Provider.
If you have a server in your mom's basement . . . congratulations, you are a cloud provider!
It's all so everyone can claim that they are doing Cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the real difference is that a diminishing number of companies have an IT department - at least one that operates any significant number of servers. An increasing number of functions are carried out on "on the cloud" - i.e. hosted by some other company whose server farm is largely application-neutral, and which your company shares with any number of others.
I guess your point is that this doesn't change things for hosting companies,
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a server in your mom's basement . . . congratulations, you are a cloud provider!
Only if you have moved out of Mom's basement.
Less and Less Latent Capacity. (Score:2)
There are two items at play here...
1) Server consolidation - when I was at AMD a few years ago, I saw a series of roadmaps showing the predicted consolidation based on hypervisors 300 servers to 30. The immediate thought that went through my mind is "the cost of enterprise CPUs" need to go up otherwise there will be blood in chip market. Servers were the cash cow for the market.
2) Migration to cloud - this is really consolidation mk II. Move to the cloud and rely on focused
I want the "cloud" term to DIE. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.
When I change the context this way, businesses suddenly start to think twice. I also like to point out that Dropbox has been found to open your documents for some unknown reason [wncinfosec.com] as a recent example to show that you don't know who is going through your stuff when you push it off onto another person's computer. Then I bring up the point that if law enforcement decides it wants to look at your data for whatever reason, you have less control over that because it's stored on someone else's systems and the warrant or subpoena could potentially go to that provider instead of you. Then there's the fun part when a cloud provider makes a mistake and accidentally gives your account to someone else you collaborated with, or deletes your account without a trace or any notice. [itworld.com] Don't even start on the NSA end of this mess. Trusting "the cloud" is a stupid idea.
Most companies don't like the idea that when they move their data into "the cloud" when the possible repercussions are put into perspective and the marketing gimmick is stripped away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. You can have private clouds, which are clouds you own. A "cloud" is just a term for interchangeable services which aren't tied to a particular piece of hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You can have private clouds, which are clouds you own. A "cloud" is just a term for interchangeable services which aren't tied to a particular piece of hardware.
No one knows the actual origin of the term "cloud computing" and what it means can legitimately be different depending on who you ask making the effectiveness of the term fairly useless. The only reason non-IT folk latch onto it is because there's a component of "I don't know what's going on" that they can understand and it makes it seem friendly. The op was merely pointing out why it's not.
BTW, the cloud symbol was most often used in the 90's on network diagrams to indicate frame-relay links between site
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen it used on many network diagrams, but by the time I was in university it generally refered to an internet connection. The visual meaning is clear enough. It means 'Something happens here, but the exact description is not important to this diagram.'
Re: (Score:2)
"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.
I wish I could mod you higher than +5. The title of this article could be accurately rewritten as, "45% of All the Server purchasers are complete, unmitigated, fucking morons."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.
No, you're missing the point. Not JUST. The cloud is Nifty, Wonderful, Magical Stuff, and Everyone's Using It Except You, Stupid.
Why? Because look at it from a Senior Manager's standpoint: you're offloading responsibility for control, access, and intrusion detection to the companies data "Somewhere Out There" [youtube.com] as someone's else's responsibility. You've got an ironclad contract that even includes 9x 9's of uptime. Your data stays available to the world no matter what. Why you even make backup costs go aw
Re: (Score:2)
"The cloud" just means you're putting all of that data on hard drives owned someone else you don't know.
Wrong. Hosted storage predates cloud computing. Cloud computing is that plus paying per-instance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the next three years... (Score:2)
100% of all servers will ship to companies whose executives have used the "cloud" buzzword to promote the company.
or... (Score:2)
Better headline: IDC expects current trend to continue, extrapolates linearily despite thousands of years of evidence that few things scale in a linear fashion.
Like all trends in tech, this hype will hit a saturation somewhere and then something else is hot. We've seen this a dozen times before, why do we always look at the newest trend as if we're newborns seing the sun for the first time?
Cloud providers ? (Score:2)
Does it mean that 45% of all servers will be used to heat up water ? Or maybe something about weather forecasts.
Re: (Score:2)
This. They seem to not take into account that part of the reason that companies want servers it to put private information there. And some countries have strong privacy policies for protecting their citizens information. That should ban a lot of companies for storing their servers into US based clouds at the very least.
My prediction would go into the opposite direction of cloud servers, toward personal/home servers, increasing the use of p2p/mesh encrypted networks and services, at least in the countries n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both technical and political solutions should be taken, developed and adopted if we want to get back our privacy. There are several countries that are in bed with NSA (that will do everything in their hand to prevent people to try to keep their privacy, including the ability to have home servers), and several that not. And if well things could be out of hope in US, england, australia, sweden and some more, in others meaninful actions could be taken.
The point is doing what is within our possiblities. If we
Re: (Score:3)
I'm more cynical: I believe that the vast majority of people couldn't care one bit about internet privacy until it affects them personally and directly. The only people using mesh networking and encrypted p2p are pirates and enthusiastic activists.
That's the whole plan (Score:3)
See, if they spy on Americans, they could get in trouble. See, as an intelligence agency, there are limits on what they can do wrt Americans, and if you ahve an American server and an American person of interest, then you have to do a bunch of paper work and go to a secret court and it's just a big pain in the ass.
BUT if you ship everything overseas, then it's fully within plausible deniability in harvesting all of the information from a source controlled by a foreign national. Once it goes off shore, the d
Re: (Score:2)
As recent revelations have shown, the NSA ban on domestic spying exists only on paper. The NSA does regularly and knowingly spy on Americans with impunity. It's only a problem if they get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
You people complain when the stories are old, and you people complain when stories arrive from the future.
There's just no way to satify you people, is there?
Re:Three years OR months, ball's in your court (Score:3)
There's just no way to satify you people, is there?
I thought they meant In Three Years, Nearly 45% of All Servers Will be Obtained from Bankrupt Cloud Providers.
So if you hold on to your existing autonomous infrastructure today... in three years you will be able to upgrade your server very cheaply!
If we can convince everyone to hold on to their existing autonomous infrastructure starting right now... we won't even have to wait three years! Those sad little cloud service pound puppies will start hitting the market in months.
In light of this I have decided t
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they won't really go bankrupt, they'll just use all their servers to mine bitcoins, once they hear that Gartner or IDC expects bitcoin to be at $11.7k in three years.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to know what your reasoning is? I think we are simply witnessing the movement of certain base-level IT services into the commodity space. This has happened in many other industries once they become mature. For instance, unless you have some critical, unique, proprietary capability, you probably farm out your manufacturing. Why have capital equipment and specialized employees unless they are going to be utilized 100% of the time? A well-run contract manufacturer will be doing just that. The same thi
Re:In three years... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although I don't proclaim to be able to predict what will actually happen in the future. I the past in the computer industry has bounced between server "cloud" centric and client centric for years. There are advantages in having both, In your example of email while it is true you can't get new email while the internet is down you can still read old emails. If the emails where stored only on the server then this would be inconvenient. Also there is a difference your connection to the internet going down and your email cloud provider going down. It is one more point of failure.
Also don't underestimate the value of having control over your data, you do not want to be reliant on some random person/company being up, not go bankrupt, or change its terms and conditions on you. Also people like having the impression of ownership, I think its something inherent in our nature, how many things do you own that you use only use occasionally, that would much be a much better allocation of resources if it was shared?
Ownership = control (Score:2)
I think people "like the impression of ownership" not simply because it's some sort of quirk of human nature, but because it equals control of what's owned. If you think about it though, when it comes to most things of large value - we don't really own what we say we own. A lender does.
I don't know very many people in the U.S. who own their homes, free and clear. Most people I know with relatively nice cars have a loan on them, too.
So why would we be so eager to make those arrangements? Well, there's still
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have the source code to the software, it's never yours. When you buy a piece of software that communicates with other people you're very likely on an upgrade mill one way or the other. They upgrade to version x.1, if you want to keep talking with them, you do too.
>You're just a renter of the service, and the law isn't even very clear as to what the "landlord" is obligated to do with your data if you're evicted from the system.
Then you should read and amend your contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
>There are advantages in having both, In your example of email while it is true you can't get new email while the internet is down you can still read old emails
That has more to do with your email client. Not where your service is located.
>Also there is a difference your connection to the internet going down and your email cloud provider going down. It is one more point of failure.
Or one more point of redundancy depending on the design of the mail architecture. Your local email can go down too.
>Also
Re: (Score:3)
Also don't underestimate the value of having control over your data, you do not want to be reliant on some random person/company being up, not go bankrupt, or change its terms and conditions on you.
On the Ts & Cs, you have a point, but for the rest of it, I ran my own mail server for years. My uptime never came close to matching gmail, and I'm far more likely to go bankrupt than Google or Amazon. Gmail's spam filtering is better than anything I ever achieved, too.
Re: (Score:2)
If the emails where stored only on the server then this would be inconvenient.
Why would you do that? Keep using your current client. If you want to jump in and use a webmail client, then there are solutions for keeping that local as well [google.com].
I agree that people should keep their data in a form that is easy to recover from the loss of a provider, just as they should keep their data in a form that is easy to recover from the loss of their local data center.
Re:In three years... (Score:5, Interesting)
We host, we insource, we host again, and repeat. Rather than the challenge of "why will this one fail like all others before it have" ask the question the other way, "why do we think this one will be permanent, when all others before it failed?"
Re: (Score:3)
Sooner or later, companies will realize that they can save money by taking back ownership of their IT infastructure. It's simply a cycle very much in the tradition of pre-Abrahamic societies that viewed life in general as a never ending cycle.
Corporate beaurocrats need to re-arrange the deck chairs in order to make it look like they are doing something productive. Sooner or later, they will change things even if there isn't any real reason to.
Re: (Score:2)
>cloud prices - fixed, fixed fixed lol
Do you even know what you're talking about? Cloud prices, such as AWS have been dropping year by year.
Re: (Score:3)
The cloud isn't technological. There are a few enabling technologies like virtualisation, but the cloud itsself is a business model. It's just a new, upmarket term for 'outsourcing to a specialist contractor.'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A mainframe is a centralized computer, cloud services are typically distributed among many machines.
A mainframe is designed for reliability, cloud services are designed for easy fallback to an identical machine
A mainframe is made from expensive customized computer parts, cloud services are average servers
A mainframe is limited in how much it can scale, cloud services can just keep a
Re: (Score:2)
A mainframe is a centralized computer, cloud services are typically distributed among many machines.
A mainframe is a distributed computer in a single (or small number of) chassis. A cloud typically distributed within a single (or small number) of buildings.
A mainframe is designed for reliability, cloud services are designed for easy fallback to an identical machine
A mainframe is designed for uptime. A cloud is designed for uptime.
A mainframe is made from expensive customized computer parts, cloud services are average servers
Why do you care about the cost of the hardware, when it's the "service" you talk about?
A mainframe is limited in how much it can scale, cloud services can just keep adding servers to meet customer demand
A mainframe can scale to infinity, but in practice is considered limited because people didn't buy infinity, but are buying it now, so we are seeing it now.
Looks like your points of differentiation a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mainframe? You had to shell out big money to buy a mainframe. Cloud services are rented. In the 70s you could certainly buy time on a mainframe, and a lot of people did. But small companies never had an in-house mainframe as an economically viable option. If your company is so big that your IT guys are all specialized and their time is mostly occupied in their specialty, then the cloud doesn't make any sense. If you are smaller and you don't need a full time Outlook guru and your server sits idling most of
Re: (Score:2)
The Cloud is a new term to obfuscate the fact is is an old idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you were small you leased time. That is exactly what I said in my post. The tasks have changed since the dominance of the mainframe, however, and certain common tasks are now mature. It is possible that email is your competitive advantage, but it is almost as likely that electricity generation is your competitive advantage. That is to say, it probably makes as much sense to run your own email server as it does to run your own generator. Of course there are exceptions - you might be big enough to emp
Re: (Score:2)
> Why pay someone huge fees per month when your staff can easily do whatever it is.
Depends how much staff you have. Paying your staff isn't free.
>gmail simply does not do all that Exchange does.
There is cloud hosted Exchange these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much would you make administering a LAMP server? I make almost $200K/year doing DevOps managing AWS automation and orchestration (look into DevOps, its where the sysadmin/linux admin market is heading).
I can kill virtual machines and EBS volumes anywhere in our infrastructure, and every service and site continues to hum like you're swatting flies. *That* is why people use AWS; its infrastructure as software, and you can do so much more with so many less physical servers and people.
The only thing I can c