3 ms·
Both articles try to redefine "Observability" into a set of requirements that (they claim) only their product meets. It's fine to argue that your product is the
by sparsely 5y ago
Both articles try to redefine "Observability" into a set of requirements that (they claim) only their product meets. It's fine to argue that your product is the best, but it's a bit much to come up with an entirely new definition for a widely and loosely used word, which is not that similar to the common meaning.
- tybit 5y agoI agree they’re a bit strong on the sales pitch, but they’re not trying to come up with a new definition so much as bring the words usage back to its technical meaning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observability
- sparsely 5y agoTIL! Still, the common usage within technology is not that meaning, and many of the claims are put perhaps more strongly than is justified.
- pbiggar 5y agoAs I understand it, honeycomb popularised observability before it got redefined by other vendors to match their offering. So I think you're the victim of other vendors' marketing here.
- gneray 5y ago+1