To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Right, but I'm sure the MS sales rep told them that if they used Azure they'll never have downtime and it would all be redundant and scalable and blah blah blah. If I had been told that and then the whole thing (and I mean the whole thing, not just a few of my VM's) goes down because they forgot about leap years I'd be mighty pissed.
I think, I wasn't clear. The FU is reprimandable, no doubt.
My line of thinking was that at some point in deployment you pass a point of no return where you are effectively locked-in into the cloud of someone else, because moving becomes very expensive, even more expensive than putting up with a FU.
I guess, what I'm really trying to say is that cloud services lock-in your data and you will suffer the consequences and like it. Beware of the cloud, seriously.




Member since:
2005-08-18
In the short run you're probably right but the contract will be renegotiated at some point and I would make damn sure there's was a viable alternative at that point. Of course, I would probably not have bought into Azure in the first place so it's a bit moot.
Could be but on the other hand, isn't the cloud all about NOT having these kind of problems? You know, scalability, redundancy and all that jazz that the sales rep probably fed the gov't.