My company is not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or more, and months or even years of effort, and add additional constraints to the given pool of candidates we are hiring for, to migrate to GCP or Azure or DigitalOcean or Hetzner or wherever is considered more trendy than AWS right now due to "a lack of transparency" lmao. I would look completely incompetent to even suggest the idea to anyone internally.
But your company is willing to accept poor service and as a result spend more money with the same provider to ensure continuity. So essentially you reward Aws hiding their stats. As they can claim high uptime figures and when an outage happens it's the users fault for not spending enough money with them to have many many instances around the availability zones to ensure your covered the Aws mess up. I get it redundancy is needed in systems but lack of proper reporting message users are forced to over spend our of fear. It's a great business model. Hook the clients in with lies and then get them to reward you for hiding facts. Clearly your company has money to burn wasting it like this. Every one knows they lie and are blatant about it why is it tolerated. As I said I don't see other enterprise providers getting away with this kinda behaviour towards clients
If you are willing to host your critical infra on some dodgy startup alternative that might go away in 3 months because you refuse to bend on your personal values and separate them from what the typical organization actually cares about, best of luck. I know HN tends to loves the underdog, but there is a time and place for that, and a time and place to accept what you need to do to keep your services online.
So your logic is to accept poor quality service to keep your service online rather than trying to do better and improve service. So you are saying that rather than rewarding a company trying to do better just accept poor service from Aws.How is this better than "hosting on some dodgy start-up" This is nothing to do with my personal beliefs or opinion I'm trying to understand why it's accepted from Aws but not others
Edited for to add point
My logic is to build highly resilient infrastructure given the constraints available. Your definition of "poor service" is not what I have experienced in my 10 year career as a SRE, because I build around your definition of what makes it poor and make it work as it should. It's called chaos engineering, and companies like Netflix have been doing it for years with their Chaos Monkey tool and SRE practices. Doesn't matter what cloud provider you go to, there is ALWAYS unexpected and unannounced downtime unless you build around, plan for, and expect it. But sure, go ahead and tell us all how industry leaders like them are wrong for sticking with what you call "poor service."
Ok simply question. Would you accept any other infra service provider having such poor customer service and not provided updated status of an outage/disruption for 45 min.
You are deliberately avoiding the counter-points I already specifically addressed in response to that question to the point we are stuck in a loop, so I am going to leave this thread now. If you feel you can do a better job at SRE with your current mindset and believe you are better at choosing which cloud providers are worth using for an org, I welcome you to try.
Many companies are hiring and retaining specialists in AWS-lock-in-technology, who lack experience with another-cloud-provider-technology, so I don't know what's surprising.
Training and getting up to speed takes time and money, neither of which are unlimited for any organization. It's not that they/we can't work with other cloud services, it's that it would likely add up to months of additional on-boarding time to get someone who wasn't familiar with another cloud provider productive with infra at scale on said provider.
