[vanusa]

It didn't even cross my mind that they would be down.

As soon as you start banking on "the cloud" to get useful work done, the very first thing that should enter your mind is:

"Any of these nifty services can just turn into a pumpkin at any time"

[mindcrime]

Much like we have the "Fallacies of Distributed Computing"[1], we probably need (if somebody hasn't already created) a "Fallacies of The Cloud".

Fallacy #1 - The cloud is reliable

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_compu...

[dlsa]

The real kicker is that they're still other people's computers. There's definite benefits as well as costs. Ignoring either is not a good idea.

Centralisation into just a few large providers is another bad idea we're heading towards or have already arrived at.

[NaturalPhallacy]

"The cloud is just other people's computers." is the most succinct way I've heard it.

[mr_toad]

> "Any of these nifty services can just turn into a pumpkin at any time"

Which is just as true for on premise servers.

[fivelessminutes]

If something you control, manage and backup goes down, you can fix it.

It won't go away on its own, or like Travis make you dependent on it, get bought out by VCs who milk your dependency for money.

When it goes down, it only impacts your jobs until you solve it, not single-point-of-failues the whole internet and whole programming languages.

Your self-sufficiency also acts to stop all software endevour concentrating in the hands of one monopolistic American company.

[vanusa]

Yup - it's a difference of both degree and kind.

[muzani]

99.99% uptime means something is always down 0.01% of the time. That's an hour every year. It's not down at time of checking, so it seems about right. I wonder if there's an effect of different cloud items being down an hour every year.

[vanusa]

99.99% uptime

Until they get bought, or simply discontinue / modify the product, and/or you fail to read the fine print on the ToS. Or they simply lie.