
Amazon Web Services in Plain English - ins0
https://www.expeditedssl.com/aws-in-plain-english
======
michaelbuckbee
Hey HN, I wrote this, thanks for all the feedback. In particular if I've
mischaracterized the functionality of a service or you see something that's
really off please email me at mike@expeditedssl.com or just tell me here and
I'll fix it.

~~~
genericacct
Cognito is probably more like "oauth and backends for your apps"

~~~
patsplat
My primary understanding of Cognito was that it was a great way to turn social
or developer login into temporary AWS credentials with a specified role,
allowing AWS apis to be safely used client side.

------
junto
What's amazing is the amount of services Amazon offers.

Whenever I look at my AWS console I see these reems of badly named services
and I think to myself

    
    
       "after I've dealt with the current problem for which I've logged in AWS,
       I might get to figure out what all that other stuff actually is". 
    

However, I never do because there is more stuff to take care of, and since AWS
doesn't make this easy to understand, you just don't bother. Now I know that
AWS actually has some really useful stuff, and for things I would never have
considered using Amazon for, like video processing (Elastic Transcoder),
source control (CodeCommit) and OAuth as a service (Cognito).

They just seem to be bad at marketing their stuff. Here's an example:
[https://www.google.de/search?q=source+code+repository+online...](https://www.google.de/search?q=source+code+repository+online&rct=j)

Why isn't CodeCommit here on the first page of the search results?

~~~
PuffinBlue
I understand where you are coming from.

I'm just 'starting out' with a lot of this, despite a few years
building/hosting websites, and these sort of services are the things I'm
starting to look at.

I'm completely disinterested in Amazon's offerings chiefly because they're so
obtuse. Why should I expend so much cognitive load just figuring out what each
service is and what it could do for me?

It's undoubtedly possible to do, AWS has a hell of a lot of users, but I
simply am not going to perform the mental gymnastics to work out what they
could do for me, let alone work out the price (which seems cleverly designed
to keep the final figure a total mystery).

Maybe I'm too early in my progression to really need this stuff yet ( I
probably am TBH) and so I'm not motivated enough to really dig into it, but
the point stands - why should I need to be?

~~~
Pyxl101
Because when you figure out how to use them, you can save a tremendous amount
of time and energy, and build sophisticated systems with simple code and
little effort. When you have the need in a certain area, a lot of them will
feel like "Wow, I didn't know that someone could automate this for me with so
little effort compared to doing it myself". Most of it becomes increasingly
valuable as you operate larger systems with many moving parts.

These AWS services are each solving a separate problem that people encounter,
and usually embody a sort of "design pattern" like a distributed queue, or a
load balancer, or a cache. Microsoft Azure and to a lesser extent Google Cloud
Platform have similar lists of services (many services, each doing a different
thing): [https://azure.microsoft.com/en-
us/services/](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/)

It's really just like figuring out any other software ecosystem, though. If
you stacked up a list of open source libraries or commercial libraries in a
certain area, I'm sure it will feel the same. For example, so you want to get
one application to speak to another over RPC. Well, you could use Apache
Thrift, or Google Protocol Buffers, or Cap'n Proto, or Swagger.io, or SOAP or
ASN.1 or I'm sure countless other things, and that's simply to perform the
_same task_. What if you wanted a message queue? RabbitMQ, ZMQ, IBM MQ, ... I
don't know if anyone has tried to put all of these on the same page and
product matrix, or even keep track of them.

There's just a lot of stuff out there to learn and take advantage of. Being an
effective software engineer in business is just as much about reusing existing
stuff as it is about building new stuff from first principles. I'd say it's
actually more about reusing stuff, since all other things equal it saves a lot
of time. Don't build yourself or manage yourself what you can use for free or
buy unless it's your core competency.

~~~
jimbokun
"When you have the need in a certain area..."

I find this is the key to understanding a service, library or technology. It
is very difficult for me to wrap me head around something if I haven't yet
encountered the problem it solves.

For example, I'm sure Docker is awesome, but I don't really understand it yet
because I haven't yet felt the pain Docker takes away. So I enjoy following
new technologies, but when I don't really see the point I just assume I
haven't experienced the pain the new technology takes away.

~~~
txutxu
Did upvote your sincerity.

I've work with complex and critical linux firewalls, and I love some AWS
networking aspects...

Your comment was like a fresh air of sincerity. We all need to deal with
domain specific issues. You need to be practical to keep going on.

------
hopeless
Love this! Loved it so much I made it into a tampermonkey script:
[https://gist.github.com/ideasasylum/2d7518611ffaacbc5061](https://gist.github.com/ideasasylum/2d7518611ffaacbc5061)

So now my Amazon dashboard looks like:
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/iko1p8jdwdvjpaq/2015-09-...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/iko1p8jdwdvjpaq/2015-09-11%20at%2016.08.png)

~~~
nathancahill
Nice! You could save a good amount of space in the names by dropping the
"Amazon". It's cleaner.

~~~
hopeless
I could but that would involve some editing — I stripped the content directly
from the parent post!

~~~
nathancahill
Just a simple find and replace:
[https://gist.github.com/nathancahill/a5761667e9d1d4377463](https://gist.github.com/nathancahill/a5761667e9d1d4377463)

------
timclark
"It's like: Stacking cash on the sidewalk and lighting it on fire"

Is an accurate description of a large number of products that I have been
forced to use after various CTOs have played golf with a vendors sales team.

~~~
Sir_Cmpwn
I've found that nearly any use-case of AWS is like "stacking cash on the
sidewalk and lighting it on fire". It's very overpriced and there's a lot of
smoke and mirrors involved in figuring out how much you're paying.

Disclaimer: I work at Linode, but have felt this way since before I started.

~~~
bkeroack
Running a business on AWS is like taking Uber to work every day. At some point
it makes sense to just buy the car.

~~~
stevewilhelm
> Running a business on AWS is like taking Uber to work every day. At some
> point it makes sense to just buy the car.

To make the analogy accurate:

Running a business on AWS is like taking Uber to work every day. At some point
it makes sense to just buy the car, hire a driver, find a good mechanic, lease
a parking spot, purchase automobile insurance, remember to buy gas, deal with
speeding tickets, schedule regular maintenance ....

At some point it makes sense, but it is way, way down the road for most
startups.

~~~
bkeroack
Empirically I've found that point to be at approximately the $30k/month spend
rate (somewhere around 4-5 years in--arguably no longer strictly a "startup").
Of course it's pretty context-dependent, YMMV, etc.

~~~
samstave
For what type of service though?

Netflix spends millions on AWS -- but it would never make sense for them to do
it themselves.

My average was ~$140K per month -- and it would NOT have made sense to do self
DC.

Right now, im deploying from DC to AWS and dropping my cost and increasing my
performance...

------
kevindeasis
It took me forever to understand what each services aim to do. Like I could
have literally been a better programmer by spending all the time learning
algorithms instead of figuring out what each of the aws services do. I wish
I've had access to this post before.

I like the services they offer, I just really hate the names they gave it.
Funny enough, Jeff Bezos said in an interview that names of a product is
important #irony

~~~
mattmanser
You've got a nasty shock coming then, you'll spend far more time scouring
badly written documentation about something that is supposedly simple but just
doesn't work and once you've got working you'll never, ever use again until
you've forgotten everything and then you need to set it up again and you'll
have to go through the whole soul destroying process again but the
documentation you find is now out of date, why-god-why, than you ever will
implementing algorithms.

In fact, if you spend more than a couple of weeks implementing algorithms in
your entire career you're probably doing it wrong or part of the 0.1% of
programmers working on low level libraries.

~~~
jimbokun
Now re-read your first paragraph in light of the second one.

Sometimes, it really is easier to just implement something your self than go
through the "soul destroying process" of figuring out how to correctly set up
and configure a library, framework, or piece of open source infrastructure.

Not an algorithm, but it can be a lot easier to write your own SQL, for
example, than setting up and configuring Spring and Hibernate. (Talk about
soul destroying. Yes, I am a Java developer, why do you ask?)

~~~
Anderkent
> Sometimes, it really is easier to just implement something your self than go
> through the "soul destroying process" of figuring out how to correctly set
> up and configure a library, framework, or piece of open source
> infrastructure

But then the next person to look at your code has completely 0 support, rather
than the very little support they'd have from the crappy documentation and
stack overflow if you used an open source library.

~~~
mattmanser
Yes, if you do what jimbokun suggests you're definitely doing it wrong.

Edge cases will consume months of development instead of spending a day or two
wrestling with poorly written error messages or badly documented APIs.

The one I always hit in .Net development is logging, log4net and elmah are
both abysmally poor at documentation, but incredibly easy once they're
actually set up.

------
stephenr
Let me preface this by saying I use AWS only when clients insist on it. I
think there are much better options that don't lock their customers in
anywhere near to the same level.

I think AWS has plenty of badly named services, but some of these suggestions
are much worse worse (and have a huge American influence - that fascination
with using brand/implementation names for a generic/standard item) than the
current actual AWS name:

* Amazon Unlimited FTP Server - why? ftp is a transfer protocol. S3 is about storage. It should be called Amazon Storage Server. Which it basically is (Simple Storage Service - S3)

* Amazon Memcached - I don't used the service so I don't know if it's only binary compatible with memcached but if its a generic cache that has multiple interfaces (the page references redis too) then more generic term like cache (and elastic implies it can grow/expand) seems more logical.

* Amazon Beginning Cut Pro - wtf. Transcoding is literally the process of converting a file from one type of encoding to another. That seems to be what this does. Final Cut Pro is not a mere format converter, it's a non-linear editor.

* Device Farm - I'll only concede that _maybe_ this should reference mobile devices, but the name seems pretty clear and concise.

* CodeCommit - how is "code commit" less clear than "github". By this logic, Apple's email client should be called "Apple Outlook" because Outlook was a well known email client on the market.

* EC2 Container Service - the reference to EC2 means its slightly non-obvious, but Amazon Container Service would be much better than something referencing Docker. Docker !== Containers.

* WorkDocs, WorkMail - seriously, you're just replacing "Work" with "Company" here.

* Storage Gateway - what are you _trying_ to be obtuse? From your very description, this sounds like exactly what the name describes - a local gateway to a storage service.

* Elastic Map Reduce - the compute/processing part of Hadoop _is_ Map/Reduce. How is "Hadooper" more clear than the current one?

* Machine Learning - you're just being facetious now, right?

* OpsWorks - again, why does their name have to reflect a single specific implementation of a fairly well understood term(s) - Operations, DevOps, etc??

edit: typos

~~~
martiuk
What would you suggest as an alternative to AWS?

~~~
stephenr
That's like me asking you "what car do you suggest?" without telling you what
I want to use it for, how big my family is, or where I live.

I have no idea what your business does or what services you need, but there
are plenty of other vendors from simple rented virtual machines up to full co-
lo of customer owned hardware. The good ones will rely on good customer
satisfaction rather than artificial vendor lock-in to remain profitable and
competitive.

------
jlebar
I have to say that I think "glacier" is an inspired name. It takes a negative
-- slow data retrieval -- and turns it into a positive -- indestructible,
huge, unstoppable.

~~~
jonkiddy
I completely agree. It is a great name for the service.

"There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming
things, and off-by-one errors." ~ Jeff Atwood

~~~
MichaelGG
Jeff Atwood did not come up with that quote.

------
unoti
When you're building a new app based around a handful of these services, how
do you have any idea what it will cost to host your business on a startup? In
the past I've avoided using these, and just used VPS servers doing my own
thing, because it's really hard for me to, for example, guess how many
database queries I'll do or messages I'll send between app components. I feel
much safer saying that I can limit myself to N servers with so much memory.
How do you make that jump to thinking the other way?

~~~
tobz
Spitball some calculations?

You can start with just a few EC2 instances, so conceivably, you could
everything on those you'd do with a VPS.

Maybe you decide that managing a database is taking too much of your time, so
now you're looking at RDS. It's more expensive, but, it manages just about
everything for you. Maybe you make the decision to switch to RDS Now you turn
down that EC2 instance running your database.

Maybe now you're thinking that RabbitMQ is too much of a pain to manage, so
you do the same thing with SQS. Analyze the time/cost savings of switching,
and see if it makes sense.

I think for new applications, estimating is a lot harder, right? You have no
traffic until someone is interested in your product, but you can sort of
spitball. There's a bunch of free load testing services out there to let you
roughly simulate N concurrent users, and open-source projects to simulate
those users yourself.

Ultimately, and maybe someone has an idea how to do this: I don't think you
can ever plan beforehand. You could be optimistic, and assume your app is
going to explode, and that you'll need 8 web servers and redundant load
balancers and DB with a read replica... but that's just what it seems like,
optimistic. I think the closest you can get is spitballing -- assuming maybe
you'll get 100 concurrent users or something -- and making sure you can handle
that.

Separately, there's the whole issue of trying to make smart decisions ahead of
time with your infrastructure, but similarly, this can be really hard to do.

~~~
decwakeboarder
We all just wing it.

The good thing is that services and charges that are hard to estimate (SQS,
egress network bandwidth, S3 access charges) are mostly drops in a bucket
compared to those that are easy to plan for (ec2, RDS, S3 / Dynamo storage).

~~~
tobz
Right. There's a lot of simple choices you can make -- SQS instead of
RabbitMQ, ELBs instead of HAProxy -- that aren't going to cut your burn rate
in half or anything.

The estimation part is definitely very hard to do for the things you mentioned
at the end, especially things like DynamoDB which want you to specify
throughput. Not only do you spend time on that, you then spend time on
handling when you exceed your provisioned throughput, etc. There's a lot of
time spent thinking about shit there.

Anywho, I agree overall. Some of their services just make sense to use because
you'll be hard pressed to paint yourself into a corner with them.

------
acre88
Sad that this is necessary, but glad someone did it. There are AWS services
listed here which — when explained this way — I realize I might want to take
advantage of.

~~~
eb0la
I agree. There are some AWS consultants out there telling you what should
order from AMZ. At least the billing is easier.

------
michaelborromeo
Thank you for this.

I can't wrap my head around why Amazon would make names for some very useful
services so inscrutable.

It's like the developers were put in charge of naming everything.

~~~
nazka
It's like they started to create different products with their own identity
and stopped here. Each product has the same doc, same yellow/white/black
design, same marketing, but with a special name. So we have nothing to anchor
our mind but that. They should continue to do what they were doing and do a
whole sub-website for each one of their product with their own marketing
identity. It will make more sense for newcomers to wrap their mind and will
ease how they should think about them. They should do the same websites than
Vault, Consul, Docker with Route 53, S3, Glacier...

------
snorkel
Whoa errors!

* S3 is not FTP. It's more like static web hosting and storage.

* VPC is not a "colocated rack" as it doesn't offer physical placement of hardware. Amazon VLAN would be a better name. It's just private network address space.

~~~
decwakeboarder
S3 (or any object store) "is like FTP" has been the best explanation I've
used. Way too many people I've talked to think that it's a POSIX-compliant
filesystem and "like FTP" is familiar enough to them to know that treating it
like a standard filesystem is a terrible idea.

~~~
Goladus
Yeah but just because a flawed analogy happens to work for people who are
completely clueless about S3, doesn't mean you should deliberately misname
your service to accommodate this lowest common denominator.

~~~
tjr
I did not read the article as literally suggesting that Amazon change the name
of its service, but rather, as a means of conveying the crux of the idea
behind the services.

I also did not take this particular description to indicate a literal FTP
service.

Analogies do not have to be perfect to be helpful. I've never used Amazon web
services, perhaps partly because I found their terminology too obfuscated to
bother trying to figure out what it did. Similar services provided by other
companies were more recognizable to me for what they were.

I found the post here helpful.

~~~
Goladus
_I did not read the article as literally suggesting that Amazon change the
name of its service_

Neither did I. But it's flawed even as a rhetorical device. For that kind of
thing to work for me, it would have to at least be plausible.

------
czzarr
This was orders of magnitude more helpful than the thousands of words that
describe AWS on the AWS website. Thank you.

~~~
nazka
I found this video quite helpful. I hope it will help you.

[https://youtu.be/DERzYnthq1s?t=21m13s](https://youtu.be/DERzYnthq1s?t=21m13s)

------
byron_fast
Excellent! You seem to have overlooked "Elastic Block Store" which should be
called "Disk".

~~~
ins0
I'm not the author of this article, but i tweeted your suggestion to the guys.
Thank you!

------
sbt
So many ways to make your software depend on Amazon.

~~~
JUsr
Seems to work for Reddit, Zynga, Dropbox and Netflix.

~~~
hueving
Netflix had to go through a massive engineering effort to make their system
reliable enough to work on AWS. If they knew what it would take in human and
capital investment, they may have chosen to build their own datacenter.

~~~
eva1984
Really? I thought they shutdown their last home-made datacenter just recently.

[http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/08/netfli...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2015/08/netflix-shuts-down-its-last-data-center-but-still-runs-a-
big-it-operation/)

------
pierceg
This is gold.

I wrote a quick and dirty chrome extension that adds these names to the
dashboard:
[https://github.com/pierceg/Amazonese](https://github.com/pierceg/Amazonese)

------
rburhum
The Direct Connect description is gold: "It's like Stacking cash on the
sidewalk and lighting it on fire"

Pretty spot on...

~~~
chii
I laught real hard at that! it's amazingly accurate :)

------
fenomas
Awesome. I wish there was a column to tell you Google's version of the same
service, where applicable.

~~~
jpatokal
[https://cloud.google.com/free-trial/docs/map-aws-google-
clou...](https://cloud.google.com/free-trial/docs/map-aws-google-cloud-
platform?hl=en)

You're welcome!

~~~
jimbokun
The Google names seem to be much closer to the "should have been called" names
from the article.

~~~
johansch
I have started researching both AWS and Google Cloud services over the past
couple of months.

My clear favorite is Google. Things are generally simpler (in a good, well-
designed way). I get the feeling smart hackers are designing things.

With AWS, the general feeling is that is designed by bureaucrats, the type of
people who like big, slow and boring companies.

------
angry_octet
I can't agree. This is like all those people who wasted money buying shop.com,
and tv.com, when all the recognition is in ebay.com and youtube.com. If you
listen to people talk about cloud services they say 'competitor-X's S3 clone',
AWS owns the terminology.

Also, S3 is NOT some ftp service, it is a new concept. And why should they
call Cloudfront instead Amazon CDN? Anyone using it knows what a CDN is and
what Cloudfront is? Its like insisting Toyota call the Camry the Toyota Mid
Size Car.

~~~
beams_of_light
What differentiates S3 from FTP, WebDAV, or other file transfer technologies?

~~~
matwood
Wow really?
[https://aws.amazon.com/s3/details/](https://aws.amazon.com/s3/details/)

Replication, versioning, security, life-cycle management, events to name a
few.

------
dankohn1
Has AWS deprecated any of the services they've launched? If not, isn't that
almost unprecedented in the worlds of either enterprise software and SaaS?

~~~
cddotdotslash
They used to have SimpleDB which had been mostly deprecated in favor of
DynamoDB.

------
matthewrhoden1
This is awesome! I spent probably an hour or two yesterday wading through all
of it to figure out exactly what each piece does. This make it really clear.

------
arbuge
SES is great for newsletters. We use it for that all the time. Not sure why
this article concludes it's only a good idea for transactional email.

~~~
justinator
I agree - I built support for Amazon SES into Dada Mail[0], and allows my
users to take a quantum leap from running Dada Mail and using their (not so
good) shared host mail servers, to sending via SES. Deliverability and speed
goes _through the roof_ and the service is incredibly cheap AND you're in
complete control over your own data, as your hosting the app yourself.

[0] [http://dadamailproject.com/](http://dadamailproject.com/)

~~~
justinator
Also, original author - are you using confirmation in your email
subscriptions? I signed up for your mailing list, and didn't get a
confirmation email - it just says I'm subscribed. That's usually not a good
idea, as I can put just anyone's email address in there. FYI.

------
mcherm
This guide is surprisingly helpful. Oh, but Glacier (not a bad name, actually)
should be "Amazon Storage for Backups".

------
colordrops
What should Lambda be called?

~~~
jschulenklopper
Ha, I also browsed through the list, curious to find the name for AWS Lambda.
Perhaps it's omitted because it is tougher to find a good name? Amazon
NoServer Computing? Amazon NoEC2?

~~~
icpmacdo
Amazon NoEC2 is a hilarious name for lambda

------
halfelf
Thanks for sharing. It's feeling like I've just weared some magic glasses for
auto translating.

------
wonjun
Thank you, such a great post, I'd like to try getting a certificate from
expeditedssl on AWS next.

------
tragomaskhalos
Some of these names make you wonder if Amazon are more in love with their own
cuteness than in actually getting people to use their stuff - "Elastic
Beanstalk" FFS? Either way, Bezos should hire the author of this piece and
make him product-naming czar.

~~~
stephenr
He really shouldn't. A number of the AWS names are much clearer than the ones
he suggests.

------
wil421
Great post some of this stuff has been is a mystery to me. Probably one of the
reason I use Digital Ocean. For my personal needs, a simple VM will do and
they even let me attach my Keys before instance creation.

------
ukd1
The SWF description is pure garbage; it's got nothing to do with EC2, or
IronWorker at all. Oddly, I think it's named sanely - it lets you setup and
manage a workflow using small bits of code.

------
ausjke
Lovely and really helpful. I used some AWS but never fully understand the rest
services, Amazon really should have some 101 page for this on its own. Those
names are painfully opaque to say the least.

~~~
lamby
I have always had the slight suspicion that the names for their developer
tools are "deliberately" bad. I mean, far easier to replace and supercede
"Amazon SZJ" than something generic like "Amazon Messenger". (As an indirect
comparison, finding out which generation of "Kindle" I have is quite a
challenge)

------
Gys
Yes ! I need Plain-English-As-A-Service or maybe just Amazon-As-A-Service

------
mattress
Why didn't I read this earlier?! I was at an AWS hackathon all day and it was
my first time ever using any of their offerings . This would have been super
useful.

------
tdebroc
Nice one: Machine Learning Should have been called Skynet

------
cdnsteve
The fact that their service portfolio has grown so large that you need a guide
to navigate through it is very telling. Has AWS grown too vast?

~~~
BadassFractal
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

------
edpichler
Why do people like to describe services in a complex way? Maybe to seems a
more complex product than it really is, or too look like "specialists"
speaking about stuff.

This is very common for small companies without marketing experience, but this
happening in companies like Amazon and Microsoft (Azure), I can't understand.

~~~
jmcomets
A lot of companies have code names for their products, the obvious reason
being easy/fast day-to-day communication. IMO this loses its effectiveness
when you have a large panel of products, and each one is provided by at least
one other company.

TL;DR version: I use "Amazon's <service name>" instead of a code name.

~~~
senderista
AWS's internal code names are never used for the public services.

------
jonathanbull
"SES: You could use it to send a newsletter if you wrote all the code, but
that's not a great idea."

As the co-founder of a startup doing exactly that
([https://emailoctopus.com](https://emailoctopus.com)), I respectfully
disagree!

------
lazyant
One of the good things about this is that when somebody comes again comparing
AWS to any regular ISP's VM we can point at this to show that EC2 alone may
not look favourably in a comparison, it's the other services in the vast AWS
ecosystem that brings the value.

------
PuerkitoBio
Would be nice if the services' header linked to the official AWS product page.

------
leoalves
DynamoDB is nothing like mongodb. Its more like a key/value database.

~~~
SubuSS
Actually we have a lot in common :).

In addition to KV pairs storage, DynamoDB supports querying, documents,
indexing and streaming from a feature stand point and infinite
provisioning/scaling from a infrastructure stand point. Give it a shot and
ping me about any questions!

------
rmason
Now if someone would write a book translating Linux commands into plain
English it would be a best seller. Or in other words explain it like you would
to an experienced Windows user.

------
taivare
Frustrating for the beginning developer , I could not even clearly see if they
had an in-house service ,for image hosting , or is images3 their brand or 3rd
party ? . . . !!

------
explosivo2k2
This is great. One note: "injest" should be ingest.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
I'd like to claim that this was me trying to hide one more joke in post about
how the whole thing was just 'in jest' but I actually just messed that up.
Will fix.

------
hmate9
Love it. Keep it simple. It is too often the case that writes assume their
readers have the same knowledge as they do. Always assume your reader knows
nothing.

------
tomcampbell
Amazon literally should pay you for this. I will be signing up for some
additional services now that I know what they are. Thank you.

Also, love the light application of humor.

------
mokkol
Such an awesome list. Really helpful! Thanks a ton!!

------
ycosynot
It makes me think that eventually technology will be so vast, there will be a
need for a 'Google Translate' of such terms.

------
disbelief
Possible alternative "should have been called" for Glacier: "Amazon Write Only
S3"

------
brixon
Best One:

It's like: Stacking cash on the sidewalk and lighting it on fire

------
kelukelugames
This should bed added as a new language in Google translate.

------
nu2ycombinator
Lambdas are missing

------
benjarrell
Is there something like this for Heroku?

------
adultSwim
Thank you

------
tragomaskhalos
OhFuckOhFuckOhFuck

should have been called: Amazon GitScanner

Use this to: search your online source code repos for injudiciously committed
access keys

It's like: Slamming the door in bitcoin miners' faces

I'm surprised they don't offer this actually

~~~
Asbostos
They do, but it runs automatically so no need to name the service.

