I'm new to Go, still finding my way with the idioms. Since there's nothing internal and this is just a small library I can see how it's simpler to flatten the directory structure, which also seems to be how other libraries do it.
30 is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? I counted 13 tools, 9 of which share (or can share) a common login (Google). This is far from as onerous as you're making it out to be.
Yes, it was an exaggeration. But they also talked about having a bunch of different hipchat rooms and things like that. They also talked about having everyone log all their time in harvest.
I get that consultancies have to log hours, but that doesn't make it any less of a drag for the people who work there. And every hipchat room that you have to keep up with is additional overhead.
So you're right that 30 is an exaggeration. But that doesn't mean that they don't have overhead (in terms of time) from using these online tools.
Certainly there will be overhead, and I can see how it can quickly mount up. Each person will have a different idea of where the tipping point is in terms of that overhead. For me personally, what was described is not that onerous.
I've been using Google paid services for almost 4 years now, I've yet to experience any issues. That being said I'm not saying I never will experience such problems, but on balance I would argue the risk/benefit for a small business is much more in it's favour.
You can be burned in any scenario. I strongly suspect you're far less likely to be burned by Google (even considering poor support) than you are by doing it yourself or going with many of their competitors, for services like Gmail, Drive, and Docs.
That's not to excuse their lack of support, but just to point out that alternatives might not be better. I'd rather have one problem in ten years that doesn't get resolved due to lousy support than ten problems, eight of which get resolved with stellar support.
Even if you host yourself, you probably grossly underestimate the likelihood of failure. The wrong set of disks failing at the same time, a fat-finger by an admin, etc. are going to be way more common and can potentially destroy much more data. Not to mention the costs are certainly higher, when you consider hardware and administration.
I agree, I've worked in several companies with different degrees of self-hosted vs. cloud-based services. Even if cloud-based services have their disadvantages I've always seen better up times and faster response times when an incident happened.
