4 ms·

My point is that those support functions' lack of understanding of realms outside of AWS shouldn't be the sole motivator for not using a technology. What happe

My point is that those support functions' lack of understanding of realms outside of AWS shouldn't be the sole motivator for not using a technology. What happens if a company that uses Software A has good motivation to use B, but their support functions don't understand B? Aren't the support functions supposed to improve by seeking to understand B, even at the initial inconvenience of time and resources?

mbreese 7y ago
I certainly don’t disagree with you on principle. It’s just a bad example in this specific case because A is roughly equivalent to B in this case. Also, Amazon doesn’t have the same reputation as Google for killing products, so it’s a pretty safe bet. And AWS will be around for quite a long time. The financial stability of MongoDB (the company) isn’t as guaranteed. Maybe the parent’s company’s processes did work in this case.
- nevi-me 7y ago
  They're roughly equivalent, but what if B costs a tenth of A? It's not about the safety of the bet, because from an OSS perspective, the issue seems to be that many are moving away from MongoDB to something even more opaque. I don't follow AWS, but do they publish a roadmap of planned changes in their document DB?
- DangitBobby 7y ago
  Does Google have a reputation for killing Enterprise products? I thought it was just consumer products that they offer for "free" that are subject to getting the axe.
Spooky23 7y ago
Don’t try to make sense of it, it doesn’t. In a .gov environment, we literally paid 5x more for certain services because the contract terms demanded were too costly or onerous for OEMs to handle. So everything funneled through middlemen of dubious value, who basically borrowed money, pushed paper and carried insurance for a vig that pushed up the price. The procurement people were very happy, because they got their three bids that varied less than 1%.
lozenge 7y ago
Would you bring a single Windows server into a Linux shop? This is the same, but most of the cost is administrative instead of technical.

mbreese 7y ago

I certainly don’t disagree with you on principle. It’s just a bad example in this specific case because A is roughly equivalent to B in this case. Also, Amazon doesn’t have the same reputation as Google for killing products, so it’s a pretty safe bet. And AWS will be around for quite a long time. The financial stability of MongoDB (the company) isn’t as guaranteed. Maybe the parent’s company’s processes did work in this case.

nevi-me 7y ago
They're roughly equivalent, but what if B costs a tenth of A? It's not about the safety of the bet, because from an OSS perspective, the issue seems to be that many are moving away from MongoDB to something even more opaque. I don't follow AWS, but do they publish a roadmap of planned changes in their document DB?
DangitBobby 7y ago
Does Google have a reputation for killing Enterprise products? I thought it was just consumer products that they offer for "free" that are subject to getting the axe.

Spooky23 7y ago

Don’t try to make sense of it, it doesn’t. In a .gov environment, we literally paid 5x more for certain services because the contract terms demanded were too costly or onerous for OEMs to handle. So everything funneled through middlemen of dubious value, who basically borrowed money, pushed paper and carried insurance for a vig that pushed up the price. The procurement people were very happy, because they got their three bids that varied less than 1%.

lozenge 7y ago

Would you bring a single Windows server into a Linux shop? This is the same, but most of the cost is administrative instead of technical.