> Given that chrismonsanto, is taking an even more hard line approach to controlling his stack than I do, I'm assuming he agrees (I know - dangerous).
I'm actually OK with using something like EC2, because I control what runs on it. If I feel I can't trust EC2, or that it is too expensive, I can purchase my own hardware and move my stack to that. However, if I outsource my user management, I imagine the interfaces will be proprietary, and I will have to tear up my stack quite a bit to switch. I don't like that risk.
> I think there is value ... in coding your stack from top to bottom, and having no external dependencies
I'm also OK with having dependencies on other people's work, I just want the source code available so I can fix up things if necessary. I don't even require that the software is 'open source' or 'free software', since I don't plan to redistribute my changes. I do currently have one component in my stack that is proprietary (with source) and I have very much appreciated the ability to fix up things that didn't fully integrate with the rest of my service.
I'm actually OK with using something like EC2, because I control what runs on it. If I feel I can't trust EC2, or that it is too expensive, I can purchase my own hardware and move my stack to that. However, if I outsource my user management, I imagine the interfaces will be proprietary, and I will have to tear up my stack quite a bit to switch. I don't like that risk.
> I think there is value ... in coding your stack from top to bottom, and having no external dependencies
I'm also OK with having dependencies on other people's work, I just want the source code available so I can fix up things if necessary. I don't even require that the software is 'open source' or 'free software', since I don't plan to redistribute my changes. I do currently have one component in my stack that is proprietary (with source) and I have very much appreciated the ability to fix up things that didn't fully integrate with the rest of my service.