3 ms·
"To big [to allow] to fail" is what that term means. This would extend to a service like amazon actually, where survival of the service would be an extraordina
by elastic_church 10y ago
"To big [to allow] to fail" is what that term means.
This would extend to a service like amazon actually, where survival of the service would be an extraordinary effort in case this problem lasted for a long time.
The way you imagined it, as 100% uptime, is incorrect.
- phil21 10y agoI didn't get that at all from the OP. His comment I'm fairly certain is of the "why the heck are we centralizing the web to 2 or 3 infrastructure companies" for what amounts to a minor amount of convenience. We've seen this story play out in other industries and it never works out well for average people. It's been astounding for me to watch the pace of this centralizing and who is helping it along. The tldr; point is that a single service provider should not have the amount of control Amazon does over the Internet. At least that's my take. I know my opinion on this wildly differs from the HN crowd and SV "decision makers" these days - what is so curious to me is that this is a complete 180 from that same demographic even 10 years ago.
- rrggrr 10y agoYes: "why the heck are we centralizing the web to 2 or 3 infrastructure companies". Its a systemic asset, unregulated, in a world where every systemic asset is regulated (eg. utilities, transportation infrastructure, etc.).
- witty_username 10y agoRegulations means you force your standards on other people who might not need or want them. If you want other infrastructure companies or decentralized internet, you are free to do that yourself via voluntary means.
- vocatus_gate 10y agoIt's because centralization is really, really convenient when it works correctly. And most of the time, it does. It's just when it breaks it's really, really bad.