Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | edbyrne's commentslogin

Drop me a note (email is in my profile) if you'd like to look at a SaaS business at the higher end of your revenue target.


Note: While HN's profile indeed shows an email field, that's not made public to people looking at your profile. You will need to put it (obfuscated) in your "About" section if you want other users to be able to see it.


Emails not in the profile


Per GB it's 4c - and S3 is 3c - I wonder why? Maybe internally Amazon teams have to pay for S3 so the 1c is Cloud Drives margin...


Congrats to all- great service have been using for everything for years!


Blog and lots of Copper tools hosted on AWS. Stackdock on dedicated (not AWS or other IaaS) hardware.


To be honest - I think it's a timing thing - virtualization wasn't popular initially but VMWare did a great marketing job. Then any hyper-visor became acceptable. Now - VPS-style containers are becoming acceptable. IE: Docker.


Timing is definitely part of it.

Being too early can kill you. If you think your idea is awesome but too early, my advice is to keep trying for as long as it takes. Docker was not my first attempt at solving this particular problem :) [1] [2] [3]

[1] https://bitbucket.org/Foi3GraS/dotcloud-fork/commits/1

[2] https://github.com/dotcloud/cloudlets/commit/0af885a5266fba7...

[3] https://bitbucket.org/dotcloud/vm2vm/commits/2a34438989fbff0...


Appreciate the feedback - thanks - point taken and we'll fix this.


Hackernews traffic spike! You can signup and create a Dockerfile - we've just paused instance deployment for a couple of hours as we add more servers. Sorry for the inconvenience.


Thanks for the suggestion - we are looking at more usage based billing - including per CPU cycle / RAM usage to be a 'true' utility.


It's per instance - so you can have unlimited docker files; you only pay when you create an instance from one.


Thanks - we discussed that a lot - we were trying to make a simple 3 steps process. If we get a lot of feedback that it's confusing we'll ditch it.


I think that even if [deck drop instance] is clearer than [dockerfile image container] it would be better to use [dockerfile image container] it's the standard set forth from docker, sticking to the standard makes interoperating easier for everyone.


I agree with this, though I'm biased because I personally find [dockerfile image container] clearer than [deck drop instance]. Explicit > flashy.


I think you need to define your own language if it's better. 'Deck' is clearly better than 'Dockerfile'.

Feel free to innovate - you're a startup, and it's what we love about you.


Wouldn't "Container" fit the analogy best?


I'd have to agree that the standard Docker terminology would be much preferred. Your business covers what is a pretty cutting edge, advanced concept right now. Your customers are likely to be at least somewhat understanding of the standard terminology. Your custom terminology tripped me up as well, despite having a reasonable grasp of the higher level Docker terminology.

Other than that, this looks great! I'm excited for you guys.


I'm in a similar problem space to you. After a year of defining my own 'simpler' terminology, decided to abandon it in favour of being consistent with the more popular albeit complex terminology.

I hope that saves you some time.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: