Hacker News Reader

Comment by ukulele | Hacker News Reader

Yes, it is our fault for believing Netlify had contingency plans as hosting is their core business. We're fixing this mistake now so that our customers don't have the same experience.

View on HN

By the same line of reasoning, your customers could be faulted for believing you had a contingency plan.

Nobody is telling parent's customers how to feel. But the OP suggests that Netlify customers should be faulted for choosing the the wrong setup. Broken trust goes all the way down the chain, which is why the middle links have every reason to get ticked off.

The difference is that Netlify communicated the risks to its customers, something other parts of the chain apparently did not do, in addition to not evaluating the risks presented to them by Netlify.

Did you read the docs [1] before writing this? Putting a "(recommended)" on one branch of configuration instructions isn't the same as saying that the other option has a single point of failure. Also, people on both sides of a service don't have the same responsibilities - that's the whole point of the service.

Communicating about risks OR outages are both hard, and every company has both. I'm actually a happy (though impacted) Netlify customer. But it's completely bizarre to me to try to invalidate this customer's complaint.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200303050851/https://docs.netl... (search "flattening")

Yes, I’ve visited that page before today. I admit my familiarity with these DNS setups may have made the tradeoff jump out at me. No problem invalidating the complaint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com