3 ms·

Thanks for the explanation. I'd probably not use any of those services for a greenfield project, regardless of how much money was riding on it. RE: Ubuntu chan

by ericd 13y ago

Thanks for the explanation. I'd probably not use any of those services for a greenfield project, regardless of how much money was riding on it. RE: Ubuntu changes breaking, couldn't this be mitigated by running your own repo and introducing the changes to your repo once they'd been tested on some staging servers? It may be a moot point, though - I've never had a Ubuntu update break an app, and I've found LTS to be very stable. And if there was an issue, I've always got a backup image I can revert to. Fair wrt the SA thing, it can be very janky in startups and SMBs, but in an enterprise, I'd expect most server deployment to be automated in a sane way, is this not the case?

Spooky23 13y ago
Sane? Ha! Usually, a sign of a well run enterprise IT environment is infrastructure builds driven by vendor recommendations, but customized by a deep understanding of the vendor's bugs and other strategic factors. On the procurement side, they make deals to keep costs in line. No Fortune 500 is paying $1,300/socket per host for RHEL -- they're wheeling and dealing site licenses that probably end up being similar to the Microsoft model of $X/socket for unlimited VMs. For example, Microsoft hands out lots of useless sizing guidance by assuming that you use physical hardware and JBOD disk. Good Windows admins/build engineers test the actual limits on their environment and size appropriately, and get the vendor to sign off. Enterprises are all about risk mitigation. Usually that means (Product X broke because vendor Y told us to deploy component Z wrong.)