Linked by David Adams on Thu 1st Mar 2012 22:53 UTC, submitted by judgen
Permalink for comment 509262
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-10-11
You know, I would have found this acceptable in someone's pet OSS project but not in a global service from MS that you probably pay an arm and a leg for.
Agreed, that's just embarrassing. But...
If I was the guy who was responsible for this in "the government" I would have been having a serious talk with my account rep already and it would not have been easy for them convince me to continue using their product.
...you would only complain and try to get some monetary recognition out of it, but you wouldn't quit using the service. And you know why. This is not just picking up your ball and going, it's picking up the goal posts, the fences, the benches, the lawn and the parking lot, too. I don't claim to know how large the gov's data is on Azure, but I'm sure it is somewhere in the region where you don't move on a whim.
And on top of that 1 day in 366 is probably well within agreed outage levels (I'd guess they have 99.9%, so they would be covered.)