CheezyWeezle

SLA contracts can have a plethora of stipulations, including fines and damages for missing SLO. It really depends on how big and important the customer is. For example, you can imagine government contracts probably include hefty fines for causing downtime or data loss, although I am not involved with or familiar with public sector/ government contracts or their terms.

You can imagine that a customer that is big enough to contract a cloud provider to build new locations and install a bunch of new hardware just for them, would also be big enough to leverage contract terms that include fines and compensation for extended downtime or missing SLO.

I work at a data center for a major cloud provider, also not AWS

When WSL first came out, all the documentation i read from Microsoft led me to believe it was intended to help developers who are cross-developing software for both Linux and Windows to more easily test features and compatibility and to ensure software behaves consistently. It never seemed like they intended it to be used to run Linux programs fully and integrate into the Windows environment. It always seemed like it was just there for convenience so a smaller budget developer could develop on one machine and not need to be constantly rebooting or running VMs.

So, wait, you are claiming that a Windows update broke your hardware so bad you had to reinstall the firmware, but it magically worked on a linux distro? First of all, that means it wasn’t “permanently stopped [from] working”. Second, I hate to break it to you, but it sounds like Windows might have fucked up a setting, and then you user-errored your way into breaking things. I’ve never had something break that can’t be fixed with a full system restore or reinstall, and it sounds like you had a problem just like that. If it worked on Linux, you could have gotten it working on Windows, too, because it’s clearly a software error at that point.

I never said this was a bad value, but I think we all know that these prices will not remain. They will increase because people will pay it once they are locked in. And if someone buys a used car, they have to pay that subscription to get these features, ensuring the manufacturer gets a slice from used sales. I can understand the cost, but it sets a dangerous precedent. It should be one time fee that grants the VIN access to the severs permanently. What would be really nice is if we had legislation that requires companies with a certain amount of revenue to maintain services for older products so they can’t just pull the plug later anyways.

I can understand some of these features requiring a $5/month subscription. Anything more than that is absolutely insane. With roadside assistance (depending on what that actually entails) I could see that sevice being bumped to $15-$20 a month,