But mostly it’s because the cloud has been so darned reliable.
Or because the cloud has offered such a good value proposition for cheap and easy scaling with demand.
And anyway, it's unfair to rail on people who "should have had a redundancy plan" when the service they pay money for is one with a redundancy service included in it (availability zones) which has unexpectedly also failed.
Our point stands, for engineers to consider all likely scenarios when building redundancy and not assume anyone – even Amazon – can provide 100.0% uptime.
Your point appears to be "If you don't have 100% uptime then it's all your fault and you should have planned for it you lazy idiot, everyone should blame you. Also you can never have 100% uptime so people should stop blaming Amazon.". Do you have more of a point than that?
Or because the cloud has offered such a good value proposition for cheap and easy scaling with demand.
And anyway, it's unfair to rail on people who "should have had a redundancy plan" when the service they pay money for is one with a redundancy service included in it (availability zones) which has unexpectedly also failed.
Our point stands, for engineers to consider all likely scenarios when building redundancy and not assume anyone – even Amazon – can provide 100.0% uptime.
Your point appears to be "If you don't have 100% uptime then it's all your fault and you should have planned for it you lazy idiot, everyone should blame you. Also you can never have 100% uptime so people should stop blaming Amazon.". Do you have more of a point than that?