alt Hacker NewsI see a lot of conversation here about provider feature parity, but my hope is that sovereignty doesn't have to be strictly about the region or company you choose. For me, the strongest form of sovereignty can come at a lower level. That is, running on an open-source stack you can pick up and run somewhere else should you need to. If your data and workloads live on standard Kubernetes with Postgres, object storage and the usual Prometheus/Grafana/Loki, then no single provider (EU or otherwise) actually has you over a barrel. As the article points out, the "AWS Europe is a separate subsidiary" argument does nothing if the software still ships from the USA.
Shameless plug: We started our company[0] on this basis, i.e. managed Kubernetes on bare metal in EU DCs. We run everything on open source tooling, provide DevOps engineering time to our customers' engineering teams, take on the migration risk ourselves, and offer response-time SLAs. So yes I'm biased, but I did this because I do actually really believe in this approach.
So I'd flip it around. Perhaps building a sovereign hyperscaler is the wrong approach. I'd say we need workloads that aren't welded to any one provider in the first place. And open source tools have come a very long way since EC2 first came online.
[0] - https://lithus.eu/
> If your data and workloads live on standard Kubernetes with Postgres, object storage and the usual Prometheus/Grafana/Loki, then no single provider (EU or otherwise) actually has you over a barrel.
I’ve heard this refrain most of my career - and believed it at one point. But the bytes themselves are heavy and hard to move.
Multiple projects I’ve worked on in my career would have had to _physically move_ the data (plane, train, semi) if they wanted to migrate - there was no reasonable way to get the data out of the datacenter over network on any reasonable timeframe.