> You are talking about a decision that was made 18-20 years ago.
Hang on.. what are we talking about?
According to Wikipedia, AWS was launched in 2006, which is only 12 years ago, and GCP was launched in 2008, only 10 years ago.
You could argue that, even in 2006, UTF-8 wasn't firmly enough established as the "winner" to be a clear best choice, but defending an for avoiding Unicode entirely at that point, for a company with global ambitions, just seems disingenuous.
For the question of UTC, claiming naivete also lacks credibility, if only because Y2K brought to and kept at the forefront of everyone's minds the topic of date/time representation in computers, starting around 20 years ago.
Although what you point out may be technically (and marketingly) correct, it's not a stretch to consider the current, cloud-computing AWS to have started until the availability of S3 and/or EC2.
More importantly, for these services to run roughshod, two years later, over the technical assumptions of something like AWIS also seems reasonable to expect. If AWIS isn't integrated under IAMs, that's pretty telling.
GCP inherited the decision from google's existing way of setting up servers, and they'd been setting up servers long since... or are you suggesting GCP should have run its servers with a different tz configuration than the rest of the company resulting in even worse issues?
Hang on.. what are we talking about?
According to Wikipedia, AWS was launched in 2006, which is only 12 years ago, and GCP was launched in 2008, only 10 years ago.
You could argue that, even in 2006, UTF-8 wasn't firmly enough established as the "winner" to be a clear best choice, but defending an for avoiding Unicode entirely at that point, for a company with global ambitions, just seems disingenuous.
For the question of UTC, claiming naivete also lacks credibility, if only because Y2K brought to and kept at the forefront of everyone's minds the topic of date/time representation in computers, starting around 20 years ago.