To put it bluntly: that is complete nonsense.

AWS has had more than 1 outage a year - is it not worth investing in? Are they not serious?

Outages are just a specific kind of bug, often surfaced by the interactions of several discrete bugs.

Saying “you’re not serious if you have more than 1 bug a year” is silly.

This might be rude but this is the reason we have shitty software everywhere. The "there can always be a bug, get over it mindset" is the reason software sucks, everything needs a dozen patches to even work and no one can have any peace in this business.

I honestly don't even want to debate this because I see no point, as honestly the side that would have said outages shouldn't happen is dead buried and out of a job at this point.

But,

> Saying “you’re not serious if you have more than 1 bug a year” is silly.

> Outages are just a specific kind of bug, often surfaced by the interactions of several discrete bugs.

Several bugs or 1 bug? you decide and tell me, when you have made up your mind.

Outages happen as a result of the system's design being shoddy in the first place, and an attitude where bugs shipped are acceptable because it's only a single component, rest of the system shouldn't fail.

It won't go down was the entire thing with microservices and "the cloud" I could link some blogs and brochures if you want me to.

I am honestly over the moon with these conversations on HN, really proves the point why AI is rightly replacing engineers in software, because there wasn't any engineering to begin with.

Imagine if a civil engineer said bridges fall it's fine for a few bridges to fall because bugs happen, and honestly bridge falling is just a kind of bug where several discrete bugs happened at once.

I am certain there is some room to argue about it, but what is clear is that if it was happening every single month you would have stopping using bridges unless absolutely necessary.

I am not sure if there is ever a reply for this honestly, I honestly don't even blame the people just the culture at this point. If that's what software is to some, "something that can fail at any time" and cloud's selling point is just fewer "switches to flip" I am sure I can't change that.

But I won't be deluded into thinking that software outages are just an everyday "bug" and it's fine to have several outages a year, it is the normal mode of operation in-fact no harm done.

	▲	orf an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Outages happen as a result of the system's design being shoddy in the first place, and an attitude where bugs shipped are acceptable because it's only a single component, rest of the system shouldn't fail. This is correct for some classes of failure but not others. If your authorization system goes down, should you just let any request pass? No. You also need to fail correctly. If we extend the civil engineering analogy, then that would mean fail safely. Two trains derailed in the UK last week. Should we all abandon trains? No? Why do plane crashes happen? That’s the most safety conscious area for software and hardware. Because failures happen. Everyone expects them. Bridges don’t last forever, they know they will fail after a specific time frame and so they design around that. Planes have triplicate systems everywhere. And yet, despite all this, failures still happen. And the fact they know that bridges have specific failure modes and lifespans is the result of a long, long history of bridges failing.