Comments on: Microsoft’s Sidekick cloud outage gets worse

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:21:55 +0000

*correction:
…but *THEY did not…

I really should proof-read before posting…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:20:03 +0000

*correction:
…but the did *NOT migrate them over to Microsoft servers at all.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 19:17:43 +0000

It was the company, Danger Inc., who was at fault. Microsoft just simply bought this company right before this outage. Microsoft is to blame in the sense that they made a poor decision in obtaining this company and they did not verify that Danger had a backup system in place before the acquired the company.

As far as cloud computer and Windows Azure – it all has NOTHING at all to do with this outage. Too many of you use the word “cloud” without even knowing what it means. You just want to sound tech savvy and cool. I’m sorry, but it was Danger Inc who screwed up. Microsoft bought the company, but they did migrate them over to Microsoft servers at all. The entire system is run using a hodgepodge of Linux and FreeBSD. It was a problem with their Oracle Database that caused the problem.

Please don’t ask me how I know this.. but I do… I worked there… or its better to say that I contracted there…. I saw all of this first hand.

Microsoft should not have bought Danger.

By: AshleyO

AshleyO — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:08:43 +0000

Being a sidekick user for years now, i can honestly say that i have NEVER had a problem with my sidekick until Microsoft just recently took over. I am confident in saying this is 100% Microsofts fault. Thanks Microsoft for losing my 300+ contacts, calendar events, notes, and also for leaving me without data service for about 2 weeks now.

By: Ben Werdmuller

Ben Werdmuller — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:57:41 +0000

I do think conclusions will be drawn, whether they're disingenuous or not. (Azure will run on Microsoft's server farms, so these are very pertinent questions to be asking.) I really don't think the current cloud computing situation is sustainable. I've written up a proposal, which I'd be interested in comments on; even if this isn't an acceptable solution, there will be others. Right now the numbers, technology and level of application functionality are acceptable for an interim transition state between an old and new model, but not really as a long-term situation.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:57:22 +0000

@ DavidB: How so? Both will work off Microsoft server farms, therefore it’s safe to assume they’re very similar. If one experiences a problem it’s therefore also safe to assume that others, sooner or later, may also experience the same problem.

By: DavidB

DavidB — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:04:40 +0000

Much FUD about nothing. There is ZERO correlation between Danger’s inherently flawed architecture and Azure (or anyone else’s cloud service). To draw such a conclusion just because MS owns Danger is disingenuous.