3 ms·

Yes, I'm quite sure the CTO of a leading observability platform is simply confused about terminology.

• pclmulqdq 2y ago
  It is not impossible that this is the case (at least in GP's view). Companies in the space argue between logs and events as structured or unstructured data and how much to exploit that structure. Unstructured is the simple way, and appears to be the approach that TFA prefers, while deep exploitation of structured event collection actually appears to be better for many technical reasons but is more complex. From what I can tell, Honeycomb is staffed up with operators (SRE types). The GP is thinking about logs, traces, and metrics like a mathematician, and I am not sure that anyone at Honeycomb actually thinks that way.
• MrDarcy 2y ago
  To be fair, the first heading and section of TFA says no one knows what the terminology means anymore. Which, to GP’s point, is kind of BS.
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    When in doubt, call it a data lake.
    • jaggederest 2y ago
      Sounds to me like that's just a database but with extra steps
      • ethbr1 2y ago
        Database, with schema left as an exercise for the reader
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• theamk 2y ago
  I think the Veserv was too nice in their comments - the CTO is not "simply confused", she is specifically trying to introduce confusion to separate Honeycomb from competitors. See, under common definition of observability, Honeycomb is just another platform with upsides and downsides. But if you believe the original post, Honeycomb is "2.0" while everything else is "1.0". So why are you even bothering with feature comparison for with other platforms? Are you _really_ going to go with observability 1.0 (a.k.a. most of Honeycomb's competitors) when 2.0 is out? Just sign up already, preferably for most expensive plan so you can record all those events you'll be generating.
  • spimmy 2y ago
    jesus christ ok