Staged publishing on Azure is limited to 5 slots, not 2. But you are correct, it doesn't scale out to 200 slots. However, in Azure, you pay for the first slot, the additional 4 are free, while the same isn't true in AWS.
As for SQL performance in Azure, I can't make an exact comparison, but you always have the option of running your own SQL server if you don't like the SQL Service. And even the cheapest Azure plan gets your point in time backup/restore, although the amount of time increase as you change service levels (basic - 7 days to premium - 35 days) and the cost of a P1 database is roughly half that of a single "db.m3.xlarge" instance on AWS ($465 vs $968.40), and the price gets worse from there. Multi-zoned databases on AWS are basically full cost, while on Azure (called GEO-replicas), they become cheaper. Then tack on some more if you care about provisioned IOPS (which comes free with Azure, as all tiers are allocated that way), and you've quickly turned up a huge bill for the same performance from Azure.
As for AWS RDS being the "full" version of SQL Server, I suppose that is true if you only need the functions in SQL Standard (Amazon doesn't offer enterprise). Unfortunately, we use features only available in enterprise (like being able to enlist indexed/materialized views in queries automatically), and AWS RDS service doesn't support that while Azure does -- so your "full" version is less "full" than than your "not-full" version of Azure's SQL service. Amazon's RDS is limited to 1 replica, vs 4 in Azure (we don't actually use this, yet) as well.
As for the "slammer" idea, that is quite funny, when the exact opposite would be true assuming there still exists vulnerabilities in the Service locator service. Azure likely doesn't use the same code, while AWS does, so they would be more likely to be hit than Azure *IF* another vulnerability exists, but good job bringing up a 13 year old irrelevant vulnerability into the discussion.
I might be mistaken, but according to what Amazon's description of RDS, they don't support read replicas of MSSQL.
Using Read Replicas, Amazon RDS for MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Amazon Aurora...
You can with Azure. You can also run your own SQL server if you prefer that as well, and you can set up VPNs and wall off sections, and even use your own local SQL server for fault tolerance (or performance of other local processes). I haven't seen anything you mentioned that you can't do in Azure (minus perhaps having a direct connect to their azure cloud -- but I haven't checked into that eitehr). It's just more difficult to set up with AWS.
It's a hell of a package that makes things like Microsoft Azure look like a joke in comparison
I found the exact opposite, but we are mostly a Microsoft shop. Working with Azure was dead simple, including setting up auto-scaling (Which wasn't offered by Amazon, at least when we were looking), so that our website scales up during peak times, and drops back down during the quieter times, automatically. It also ahs staged publishing which we use a lot, and the ability to switch our public website between any of the multiple slots INSTANTLY with no downtime is also a very big plus. Again, something we couldn't do with AWS at the time we looked.
Publishing directly from Visual Studio is nice (Not offered with AWS -- except via FTP which does a complete site upload instead of only differences). Automatic SQL Backups and rollbacks to point in time is also dead simple in Azure, but I'm not sure it is even possible in AWS outside buying an enterprise SQL Server license and managing it yourself.
Everything else we looked at was either better at Azure or the same between the two with the exception of their CDN, which I found better at Amazon than Azure at the time. As that wasn't a requirement for us, it was a pretty simple choice (even though we have both Azure and AWS corporate accounts). Our other departments that are java & PHP based prefer AWS however.
The context is US employees. The majority of employees are in the US. Name your country with a significant number of Google employees in which Google routinely hires people who do not speak an official language of that country, please.
And what exactly is the official language of the US? Before you answer, perhaps you should look it up.
I can't agree enough with this. How can this guy be expected to EVER master any (computer) language if he hasn't even mastered the basics of the English language after how many years? Computers change fast, and if you can't go from knowing nothing to being very very good in a language in a matter of a few months, you simply aren't very good.
All Supreme Court judges fall under article iii, as do some district court judges, and I believe court of appeals judges. Lesser district court judges(magistrate judges), U.S. Tax court judges, and a few others are not.
California doesn't even come close to "grow[ing] most of the food in the country". The account for 13.2% of the food grown in the US. While that is good for a single state, it's falls far shy of "most". In fact, California, while nearly 3 times the size of Illinois in area, only generates slightly over twice the food. That seems a lot less impressive.
You are right. We can't get any large projects completed today. Not the International Space Station, a large hadron collider, or anything of that sort.
Google is not a European company. Google has subsidiary companies that are registered in many countries, but they are mostly just sales offices. From your link: "We moved into our headquarters in Mountain View, California—better known as the Googleplex—in 2004.". Most international companies have subsidiaries where necessary -- either for tax purposes, or because the local governments require it.
Same thing for McDonalds, IBM, or any other multinational company.
Personally, I'd like to see Google just close their EU sales offices and let the EU eat dirt. Then they will just complain that they have absolutely no way of getting any EU companies listed in the search engine at all.
Don't believe what Anonymous Cowards say. They are typically clueless. The next version of.NET should be released in the next 1-6 months (I'm guessing around 4).
Dead ending VB6? Are you kidding? They had been saying that it was being phased out before VB6 was released. It's been dead for 17 years now. Give it a rest already. VB6 SUCKED.
You could not exchange documents with someone with a 4 years older Office. And this simple feature, exchanging data, had to be enforced by legal pressure...
Say what? Uh, no. Office has always allowed exchanging data to where ever, from where ever. I think you've drank too much of some funky cool aid. Word has always allowed saving to and from the 1997 version (.doc), or to other formats (.txt,.rtf,.xml,.xps,.wps), it also allows saving to.pdf, and the newer.docx format in both strict and non-strict. You could always access the document via COM/OLE as well, and read and manipulate it, and there were public hooks for writing your own code to read/write into whatever format you wanted (they called them filters). The only thing legal pressure did was force them to include the.odt format as well, which is odd, because usually the courts get mad at Microsoft bundling stuff in that could have always been done by a 3rd party, but in this case, it wanted to opposite.
FIlters is how the older versions of word were given the capability long after release to be able to read newer version of the file format as well. For example, older versions word being able to read.docx, which came out after their release. PDF was also originally added this way as well.
Perhaps, but then again, everyone needs to agree that when the market crashes, they all have to then take a pay hit as well -- and good luck trying to make any financial decisions when your pay fluctuates like that.
The problem with that is that MOST people greatly overestimate their worth, often underestimating other people's worth. This tends to have on a whole a negative impact if everyone knows how their employers actually view their worth. Quite often, a person's salary is reflective of the market at the time they here hired. Everyone else that may be equal in value then gets disgruntled that they new hire is getting paid more, even though they are equal value. In general, most people simply can't handle the truth.
Yes, typewriters (and word processors) usually have adjustable tab stops. At some point (before I started using either -- pre 1970s), most considered every 8 characters as the standard. As the story goes, it was because it was easier for early word processors and electric type writers to use a number that was easy to handle in base-2, but I don't have a reference for you. It was what was taught to me in typing class in high school, and what the pcs of the time (IBM, Apple, Atari) used as well as all the major printers understood (hp, star, a few others). It's also the default for DOS (and windows), and the web. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-te...
Slashdot Mirror
Staged publishing on Azure is limited to 5 slots, not 2. But you are correct, it doesn't scale out to 200 slots. However, in Azure, you pay for the first slot, the additional 4 are free, while the same isn't true in AWS.
As for SQL performance in Azure, I can't make an exact comparison, but you always have the option of running your own SQL server if you don't like the SQL Service. And even the cheapest Azure plan gets your point in time backup/restore, although the amount of time increase as you change service levels (basic - 7 days to premium - 35 days) and the cost of a P1 database is roughly half that of a single "db.m3.xlarge" instance on AWS ($465 vs $968.40), and the price gets worse from there. Multi-zoned databases on AWS are basically full cost, while on Azure (called GEO-replicas), they become cheaper. Then tack on some more if you care about provisioned IOPS (which comes free with Azure, as all tiers are allocated that way), and you've quickly turned up a huge bill for the same performance from Azure.
As for AWS RDS being the "full" version of SQL Server, I suppose that is true if you only need the functions in SQL Standard (Amazon doesn't offer enterprise). Unfortunately, we use features only available in enterprise (like being able to enlist indexed/materialized views in queries automatically), and AWS RDS service doesn't support that while Azure does -- so your "full" version is less "full" than than your "not-full" version of Azure's SQL service. Amazon's RDS is limited to 1 replica, vs 4 in Azure (we don't actually use this, yet) as well.
As for the "slammer" idea, that is quite funny, when the exact opposite would be true assuming there still exists vulnerabilities in the Service locator service. Azure likely doesn't use the same code, while AWS does, so they would be more likely to be hit than Azure *IF* another vulnerability exists, but good job bringing up a 13 year old irrelevant vulnerability into the discussion.
I might be mistaken, but according to what Amazon's description of RDS, they don't support read replicas of MSSQL.
Using Read Replicas, Amazon RDS for MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Amazon Aurora...
You can with Azure. You can also run your own SQL server if you prefer that as well, and you can set up VPNs and wall off sections, and even use your own local SQL server for fault tolerance (or performance of other local processes). I haven't seen anything you mentioned that you can't do in Azure (minus perhaps having a direct connect to their azure cloud -- but I haven't checked into that eitehr). It's just more difficult to set up with AWS.
It's a hell of a package that makes things like Microsoft Azure look like a joke in comparison
I found the exact opposite, but we are mostly a Microsoft shop. Working with Azure was dead simple, including setting up auto-scaling (Which wasn't offered by Amazon, at least when we were looking), so that our website scales up during peak times, and drops back down during the quieter times, automatically. It also ahs staged publishing which we use a lot, and the ability to switch our public website between any of the multiple slots INSTANTLY with no downtime is also a very big plus. Again, something we couldn't do with AWS at the time we looked.
Publishing directly from Visual Studio is nice (Not offered with AWS -- except via FTP which does a complete site upload instead of only differences).
Automatic SQL Backups and rollbacks to point in time is also dead simple in Azure, but I'm not sure it is even possible in AWS outside buying an enterprise SQL Server license and managing it yourself.
Everything else we looked at was either better at Azure or the same between the two with the exception of their CDN, which I found better at Amazon than Azure at the time. As that wasn't a requirement for us, it was a pretty simple choice (even though we have both Azure and AWS corporate accounts). Our other departments that are java & PHP based prefer AWS however.
The context is US employees. The majority of employees are in the US. Name your country with a significant number of Google employees in which Google routinely hires people who do not speak an official language of that country, please.
And what exactly is the official language of the US? Before you answer, perhaps you should look it up.
I can't agree enough with this. How can this guy be expected to EVER master any (computer) language if he hasn't even mastered the basics of the English language after how many years? Computers change fast, and if you can't go from knowing nothing to being very very good in a language in a matter of a few months, you simply aren't very good.
To be fair, I think they got paid.
Our new AI overlords of course.
All Supreme Court judges fall under article iii, as do some district court judges, and I believe court of appeals judges. Lesser district court judges(magistrate judges), U.S. Tax court judges, and a few others are not.
I'd break each one of those companies up 2-4 times as well. Merge Comcast/TWC then break them up into 6-12 separate companies.
Perhaps you shouldn't be behind on your bill?
Area of the states taken from Wikipedia. Crop production taken from the respective state's agricultural departments.
California doesn't even come close to "grow[ing] most of the food in the country". The account for 13.2% of the food grown in the US. While that is good for a single state, it's falls far shy of "most". In fact, California, while nearly 3 times the size of Illinois in area, only generates slightly over twice the food. That seems a lot less impressive.
Not all federal judges are appointed for life. Some are, most aren't.
There are plenty of desktops with M.2 slots.
You are right. We can't get any large projects completed today. Not the International Space Station, a large hadron collider, or anything of that sort.
Google is not a European company. Google has subsidiary companies that are registered in many countries, but they are mostly just sales offices. From your link: "We moved into our headquarters in Mountain View, California—better known as the Googleplex—in 2004.". Most international companies have subsidiaries where necessary -- either for tax purposes, or because the local governments require it.
Same thing for McDonalds, IBM, or any other multinational company.
Personally, I'd like to see Google just close their EU sales offices and let the EU eat dirt. Then they will just complain that they have absolutely no way of getting any EU companies listed in the search engine at all.
Don't believe what Anonymous Cowards say. They are typically clueless. The next version of .NET should be released in the next 1-6 months (I'm guessing around 4).
Dead ending VB6? Are you kidding? They had been saying that it was being phased out before VB6 was released. It's been dead for 17 years now. Give it a rest already. VB6 SUCKED.
You could not exchange documents with someone with a 4 years older Office. And this simple feature, exchanging data, had to be enforced by legal pressure...
Say what? Uh, no. Office has always allowed exchanging data to where ever, from where ever. I think you've drank too much of some funky cool aid. Word has always allowed saving to and from the 1997 version (.doc), or to other formats (.txt, .rtf, .xml, .xps, .wps), it also allows saving to .pdf, and the newer .docx format in both strict and non-strict. You could always access the document via COM/OLE as well, and read and manipulate it, and there were public hooks for writing your own code to read/write into whatever format you wanted (they called them filters). The only thing legal pressure did was force them to include the .odt format as well, which is odd, because usually the courts get mad at Microsoft bundling stuff in that could have always been done by a 3rd party, but in this case, it wanted to opposite.
FIlters is how the older versions of word were given the capability long after release to be able to read newer version of the file format as well. For example, older versions word being able to read .docx, which came out after their release. PDF was also originally added this way as well.
Perhaps, but then again, everyone needs to agree that when the market crashes, they all have to then take a pay hit as well -- and good luck trying to make any financial decisions when your pay fluctuates like that.
I haven't negotiated the price of a house or car for over 12 years or so. My last car, I bought new and there was no negotiation at all.
The problem with that is that MOST people greatly overestimate their worth, often underestimating other people's worth. This tends to have on a whole a negative impact if everyone knows how their employers actually view their worth. Quite often, a person's salary is reflective of the market at the time they here hired. Everyone else that may be equal in value then gets disgruntled that they new hire is getting paid more, even though they are equal value. In general, most people simply can't handle the truth.
Yes, typewriters (and word processors) usually have adjustable tab stops. At some point (before I started using either -- pre 1970s), most considered every 8 characters as the standard. As the story goes, it was because it was easier for early word processors and electric type writers to use a number that was easy to handle in base-2, but I don't have a reference for you. It was what was taught to me in typing class in high school, and what the pcs of the time (IBM, Apple, Atari) used as well as all the major printers understood (hp, star, a few others). It's also the default for DOS (and windows), and the web. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-te...
That door swings both ways. If you are supposed to be using spaces, how do you know that someone didn't put a tab in there?
Yet another person that doesn't understand the difference between random and "I don't understand".