Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I wouldn't be surprised if the person working in an Amazon warehouse doesn't have the same vacation options as the person coding the internals of Simple Queue Service.


I wouldn't be surprised if the person working in the warehouse doesn't actually work for Amazon. Contracting jobs that are easy to fill is a great way to insulate a company from moral responsibility, and you get to imply "success at any cost" to the contracting company.


It's a mix, same as any other warehouse.


Based on the (lack of) attention that SQS has received, I'm guessing that the person coding the internals of SQS has LOTS of vacation.


What more are you expecting from it?


Well, I am currently prohibited from using it where I work, for some good reasons and some bad ones. The good reasons include things like not having any isolation between users. I work in a regulated industry, and if an SQS task includes sensitive customer data, I cannot ensure it runs only on machines in my VPC, nor can I ensure that the data is encrypted on disk, so I am prohibited from using it. The not-so-good reasons are things like "Amazon hasn't provided a written statement about how long it may take for a task to appear on the queues, so we have to assume that it might take days and any task with an SLA less than 'days' may not use SQS." (What can I say... some of our policy people are irrational.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: