3 ms·

There really are no other [sane] alternatives ... unless you want to go to 50 vendors to save 50 cents per user per year on licensing (and waste 50 hours a mont

There really are no other [sane] alternatives ... unless you want to go to 50 vendors to save 50 cents per user per year on licensing (and waste 50 hours a month of everyone's time trying to get them use tools that don't integrate in any understandable/low-friction manner)

em-bee 5y ago
this is not about saving money, but about avoiding the behemoths that dominate the market. it would be rather disappointing if the options were so limited.
- warrenm 5y ago
  This is a business decision Wasting 10s or 100s or 1000s of 1000s of hours of time across an organization is stupid just for the sake of "avoiding the behemoths that dominate the market"
  - em-bee 5y ago
    sleeping better at night because the fate of my business does not depend on the whims of these companies is also a business decision
    - warrenm 5y ago
      As a business owner, do you want to be concerned about one company's potential whims? Or 50?
      - em-bee 5y ago
        i prefer 50 because the likelihood of them failing or denying service all at once is lower. much lower. this goes beyond email, but it would be insane to put put everything my business depends on into the hands of a single company.
        warrenm 5y ago
        That's not a rational business decision The fewer the points of failure, the better Your choice of 50 unrelated, unintegrated vendors introduces 50 single points of failure to business That's incredibly stupid - unless you truly have no choice It introduces a huge amount of unnecessary risk to the company, and immense overhead in additional personnel (product admins, contract management, vulnerability monitoring, end user time/training, etc) It's why multicloud is mostly not a thing: outside of a few niche cases, running cloud workloads across multiple providers is more expensive than running it all in one. Sure GCP might have something that's cheaper than AWS, and AWS than Azure, and Azure than GCP - but now you have to manage data going into and out of three providers instead of one, three separate contracts, three sets of credential groups, etc

em-bee 5y ago

this is not about saving money, but about avoiding the behemoths that dominate the market. it would be rather disappointing if the options were so limited.

warrenm 5y ago
This is a business decision Wasting 10s or 100s or 1000s of 1000s of hours of time across an organization is stupid just for the sake of "avoiding the behemoths that dominate the market"
- em-bee 5y ago
  sleeping better at night because the fate of my business does not depend on the whims of these companies is also a business decision
  - warrenm 5y ago
    As a business owner, do you want to be concerned about one company's potential whims? Or 50?
    - em-bee 5y ago
      i prefer 50 because the likelihood of them failing or denying service all at once is lower. much lower. this goes beyond email, but it would be insane to put put everything my business depends on into the hands of a single company.
      - warrenm 5y ago
        That's not a rational business decision The fewer the points of failure, the better Your choice of 50 unrelated, unintegrated vendors introduces 50 single points of failure to business That's incredibly stupid - unless you truly have no choice It introduces a huge amount of unnecessary risk to the company, and immense overhead in additional personnel (product admins, contract management, vulnerability monitoring, end user time/training, etc) It's why multicloud is mostly not a thing: outside of a few niche cases, running cloud workloads across multiple providers is more expensive than running it all in one. Sure GCP might have something that's cheaper than AWS, and AWS than Azure, and Azure than GCP - but now you have to manage data going into and out of three providers instead of one, three separate contracts, three sets of credential groups, etc