News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:October 21 post-incident analysis by hnaccy on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @06:34PM (#18341837)
>I don’t want it to read as “S3 is awfully slow, that’s what the problem was. If they were using GCS then < awesome outcome >”.

You don't mention Google at all outside of the opening statement so who would read it that way?

Re:October 21 post-incident analysis by icelancer on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @07:27PM (#18342117)
Because if he doesn't disclose it and we find out, it looks terrible and like he's trying to hide something.
Re:October 21 post-incident analysis by OJFord on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @07:28PM (#18342122)
If I know a competitor wrote it, I don't read it as negative. To me, it's a welcome courtesy, but as you say, I couldn't assume it if absent; so I'd probably paint a negative picture of S3 with the same albeit unprefaced sentence.

(Plus, I'm always pleased to see someone not call it a 'disclaimer'!)

Re:October 21 post-incident analysis by ksec on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @04:35AM (#18344078)
Disclosure of Interest should be a common practice across all Industry and web discussions. It provides a lot of additional perspective, most of the places do not adhere to this.

Fortunately HN has kept the culture of disclosure intact.

Re:October 21 post-incident analysis by gpm on Tuesday October 30, 2018 @06:49PM (#18341912)
Google cloud is a significant direct competitor to AWS. Anything criticizing AWS reads that way to some extent.
Re:October 21 post-incident analysis by shaklee3 on Wednesday October 31, 2018 @01:38AM (#18343583)
He mentions Google frequently in his posts for context. It's very useful, and there was nothing disparaging that he said.