[partiallypro]

How exactly is saying Azure isn't based on "horrible tech," "harmful?" None of the big cloud providers are based on "horrible tech." Your statement provides anecdotes but no data that proves this as "harmful."

Honestly, it sounds like you just don't like Microsoft more than an even keel observer.

[dijit]

I don't really care enough about microsoft to hate it as a company, there's some good and some bad. Visual Studio is one of the best IDE's around. And Windows itself has some really good ideas underneath (like IOCP). But it's fair to say I'm not a fan of Windows itself.

My bias is purely on the technical merits of the provider. My company had a pretty large discount on Azure so it was under strong consideration.

My point about it "being harmful at worst" is that it's spreading uncertainty without any actual evidence.

I, on the other-hand have evidence from a 12,000+ person company that is using all three cloud providers.

[partiallypro]

> My point about it "being harmful at worst" is that it's spreading uncertainty without any actual evidence.

Actually, that's precisely what -you- are doing, not me.

> I, on the other-hand have evidence from a 12,000+ person company that is using all three cloud providers.

I worked at a much larger company than that with over 20K employees that used Azure/O365 and AWS (but no GCS.) Your anecdote means nothing. You're on Hacker News, there are people here that work and have worked for massive media companies, industrial companies and tech companies. Many of which use Azure, AWS and GCS.

Do I wish Azure were better? Absolutely. I have a lot of ideas and complaints where things could be so much better. But I also have just as many numerous complaints about GCS and AWS.

[dijit]

Excellent. Then this is the forum to list them.

FWIW our migration to office365 has been pretty great, but I don’t see it as being the same thing as using Azure for your product.