• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Yeah, there’s going to be hilariously bad outages at AWS within like a year.

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah… I didn’t choose it, but some of the services from my employer run there. May be a good time to make some moves, we’ll see.

      Not really going to be an issue I can fix obviously, but I’ll be making even more backups than normal…

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        good time to make some moves

        To where? Google? Azure? There’s a reason we call them Frugal and Unsure at my side job. If AWS sucks in the next year, that’ll barely bring it down to their level. Hell, if AWS sucks ALL NEXT YEAR with a clown-car style outage every week, then maybe.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Why? Amazon seems to have built an amazing system with AWS, but does it need the same amount of staff time to maintain it that it needed to develop it?

      If Amazon acknowledges that it isn’t going to be developing new products to the scale it did for the past decade, it probably doesn’t need the headcount it had before.

      • AliasVortex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 minutes ago

        Enh, the tech space is very much innovate or die. So yeah, they could probably throw everything in maintenance mode and make a reduced headcount work, but if AWS goes stagnant it’s entirely likely that Amazon goes the way of IBM and Motorol. Especially when someone (likely, Microsoft or Google) comes to take a slice of the AWS market share.