[hhw]

But that's the point. Most people don't need anything that well-engineered. Compared to more traditional hosting solutions from quality providers, AWS has terrible uptime and at a much higher cost for the same amount of resources. Two VPS'es from two different providers in a simple failover configuration with an anycast DNS solution would be simpler, cheaper, and much more reliable.

[hhw]

Wow, apparently that last comment really hit a nerve, as several people decided to downvote it, but not a single person actually refuted any of what I said. I was under the impression that downvotes were more to be used against trolling or flamebaiting, and not just opinions that people disagreed with. Considering everything I said is quite easy to verify as being true, this downvoting just strikes me as kind of intellectually dishonest. I expected better from HN.

[tquai]

Yeah, I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere. Some people think I believe a $5 computer could handle amazon.com's traffic, which is clearly preposterous.

I know that almost all of my downtime comes from when I overengineer things. And I don't need to "patch my kernel" because my OS doesn't have kernel holes once a week. Linux isn't the only Unix OS out there.

Today, a lot of sysadmins believe that "LAMP" is a synonym for webserver, and consequently there are a bunch of webservers serving static content on a machine with way too many moving parts. Complexity is bad.

"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." -- Albert Einstein

[potatolicious]

I think the downvotes are because your post is somewhat off topic.

OP responded to "Amazon.com is down" with "this is a lesson in over-engineering" - which it isn't, because Amazon.com is most certainly not overengineered for its purpose (I've seen the code with my own two eyes).

Your response is "not everyone needs extensively engineered systems", which is true, but is a non-sequitor from the previous posts.