Burl Ives Workloads
I was going through my spawling comments on the Interwebs and noticed my Branch and Medium accounts were still alive but from a time when the Twitter authentication account creation was quite dated. I even came across two orphaned comment streams that are worth a revisit on Branch that serve to show just how fragile consumer web services can be. I added my content to a buffer and decided to move it back into a blog post of my own versus the growing places to dump thoughts.
Unfortunately, I don’t see Branch or Medium as durable places for content or thoughts.
Let me explain.
Previously, I used Medium to cut and paste one of my prior blog posts. On Medium the post got 35 views whereas on my personal and quite obscure website there has been hundreds of views for essentially the same content.
Branch is probably worse since it invites longer form comments that are basically the size of a missive or quickly rattled off blog post. So, just like comments that have been lost like the sands of time… no thanks.
Here’s to saving one such thought from the langoliers of the cloud.
(The topic of cloud native workloads is a popular one in clouderati circles.)
Porting aside, I’d argue there are “Burl Ives” workloads that will not get cloudy by virtue of purposeful inattention by ISVs, preclusive highly customized design choices, or otherwise premises / latency / isolation / legal / license / cultural / etc. oriented requirements.
It does not preclude placement within some variety of ultra generalized x86 basis cloud (today) . It’s simply a question of how well it runs as measured against these concerns.
Shops running “Burl Ives” workloads will never stop asking if it is permissible to get more cloudy. If it means enduring the legacy for another few seasons of market innovations to get there so be it.✍️ 🤓 Edit on Github 🐙 ✍️