|
|
|
|
|
|
by jph00
35 days ago
|
|
|
There's always someone making this claim when negative comments about AWS come up. They almost always come from people that don't have experience running substantive infra at scale without AWS, so they can't make an informed comparison. The complexity of doing so, for a lot of infra, turns out to be lower than using AWS. Also, you end up with transferable skills and a deeper understanding of the foundational protocols and systems. And you save a lot of money, both because you don't have to pay to manage that complexity, and the systems themselves are cheaper. |
|
|
It's super difficult on a psuedo-anonymous forum to discern if a comment comes from a neutral place or a heavily biased one.
This is made even worse when there's a financial or reputational incentive for people to parrot something. If I had invested the bulk of my professional career in Microsoft: I would be genuinely uncomfortable with criticism. I would subconsciously feel threatened and would work to convince myself and others that it's not so bad, or that criticisms are overblown.
This is even more true if the company actively spends (your companies) money to make you feel good. You neither feel the actual pinch of the financials and you feel good about the company.
It's really clever, and we're emotional animals: so we don't always make the most pragmatic choices.