Actually nothing new here, this was the same in the pre-cloud era where everyone in enterprises prefer big names(ibm, microsoft, oracle, ecc) to pass the responsibility to them in case of failures ... aka "nobody get fired because of buying IBM"
Actually nothing new here, this was the same in the pre-cloud era where everyone in enterprises prefer big names(ibm, microsoft, oracle, ecc) to pass the responsibility to them in case of failures ... aka "nobody get fired because of buying IBM"
And the big name companies always refuse to take responsibility, and have worse reliability metrics than the lean alternatives...
but somehow that is never a problem.
The only metric that's important is the CTO's bonus
When everyone is suffering because AWS is having its bi-yearly 8 hour outage, the CTO isn't blamed, bonus all round, and maybe the AWS sales team takes him for an apology lunch
When the CTO is up for 1500 days straight then has a 2 hour downtime when nobody else does, the CTO is blamed, no bonus, and more likely to get fired
Reality matters less than perception.
This fired of some warning bells in my head. Is the data available to actually make a verifiable claim regarding those reliability metrics like you are.
Microsoft and Oracle were on the vanguard of suing people that published metrics about them into bankruptcy... So, do you trust the metrics they publish?
IBM is older, and it's incredibly well documented how mainframes are more expensive to run than normal servers.