With all love and respect to @azure: Are you folks out of your goddamned minds? aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/…
Go read that and then come back.
Go read that and then come back.
AWS is wrong here. It's not a worthless benchmark because its methodology is flawed, it's worthless because if you sponsor a benchmark it becomes completely worthless. Let's take AWS as an example.
If they pay me a mid-sized pile of cash to run an "objective, third-party benchmark" I'm free to do whatever I want, but if I come back with a benchmark showing GCP kicks the crap out of them that's the last benchmark cash I'll ever see from them.
This is like the pile of @cloudspectator reports that routinely gave 1&1 perfect scores and every other cloud provider worse ones. I WONDER IF THERE'S MAYBE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE.
If you're running benchmarks you either take nobody's money to do it, or everyone's money to do it. That's a hard sell, and it's why I don't do benchmarks. @gigaom clearly makes different choices. Please stop treating your prospective customers like idiots.
@gigaom "But what if we want to pay you to shit on our competitors, Corey?" I'll do that for free! Nothing is safe!
The better idea is to pay me to shit on your own offerings, to your internal teams, before you ship it and still have time to fix the egregious bits!
The better idea is to pay me to shit on your own offerings, to your internal teams, before you ship it and still have time to fix the egregious bits!
@gigaom "So we'd pay you to insult us?"
"No, you'd pay me to hear what the rest of the world is going to say if you ship your product as it is, get it in actionable form, and as a bonus it'll be delivered via standup comedy monologue."
"No, you'd pay me to hear what the rest of the world is going to say if you ship your product as it is, get it in actionable form, and as a bonus it'll be delivered via standup comedy monologue."
