3 ms·

> I really hope this shows companies that they should... Yes! Exactly! > ...always host in-house rather than using some-sort of cloud service for operations o

> I really hope this shows companies that they should... Yes! Exactly! > ...always host in-house rather than using some-sort of cloud service for operations of their consumer product. What? Excuse me but what? You were so close before you swerved away from the right answer. I hope this shows companies that your vacuum cleaner should not require an internet connection. This is absurd.

doublerabbit 6y ago
Good point, long day and my cynicalism of wanting to see the world burn has kicked in. I should rephrase it as "That if the product is going to be internet enabled, servers should be in-house."
- corobo 6y ago
  Isn't in house way more likely to go offline? When AWS goes dark it's news. When some company's server room goes offline some IT tech gets a pizza paid for by the company and a bit of a late night
  - joana035 6y ago
    This is FUD, full control to handle the situation, to the extent of your knowledge is awesome. When AWS goes dark, pray and go grab a coffee, there is nothing you can do. Keep pressing refresh on aws status page.
    - reificator 6y ago
      It's not FUD just because you don't agree with it. Having control is great when someone's breathing down your neck, but for a lot of organizations you'll not have people breathing down your neck as often on AWS. (At least in terms of the service itself, bad code and bad deploys are still a thing) It's different tradeoffs and the vast majority of shops are not set up to compete with AWS in terms of uptime. I'm not an AWS apologist by any means and in fact I've been moving services off AWS over the last few years, but I can't abide your claims of FUD.
    - corobo 6y ago
      I promise you I can do much better than that if I'm trying to spread FUD mate, come off it Experience. The pizza thing is a thing I used to do (far too frequently) lmao

3 ms·

> I really hope this shows companies that they should... Yes! Exactly! > ...always host in-house rather than using some-sort of cloud service for operations o

by reificator 6y ago

doublerabbit 6y ago
Good point, long day and my cynicalism of wanting to see the world burn has kicked in. I should rephrase it as "That if the product is going to be internet enabled, servers should be in-house."
- corobo 6y ago
  Isn't in house way more likely to go offline? When AWS goes dark it's news. When some company's server room goes offline some IT tech gets a pizza paid for by the company and a bit of a late night
  - joana035 6y ago
    This is FUD, full control to handle the situation, to the extent of your knowledge is awesome. When AWS goes dark, pray and go grab a coffee, there is nothing you can do. Keep pressing refresh on aws status page.
    - reificator 6y ago
      It's not FUD just because you don't agree with it. Having control is great when someone's breathing down your neck, but for a lot of organizations you'll not have people breathing down your neck as often on AWS. (At least in terms of the service itself, bad code and bad deploys are still a thing) It's different tradeoffs and the vast majority of shops are not set up to compete with AWS in terms of uptime. I'm not an AWS apologist by any means and in fact I've been moving services off AWS over the last few years, but I can't abide your claims of FUD.
    - corobo 6y ago
      I promise you I can do much better than that if I'm trying to spread FUD mate, come off it Experience. The pizza thing is a thing I used to do (far too frequently) lmao