Your comment doesnt seem fair at all. The blog post is from after they worked hard to fix everything. The comment from Jepsen that you are quoting is from before any of that fix work was done.
You are comparing two very different situations.
You are comparing two very different situations.
Also, does everyone run the very latest version of all their software? What use to me is that my vendor has fixed everything in the newest release that I am not using?
Oh and yes, I'm only quoting bits of each (fully knowing you all have links to both and can read it in full), but that's to illustrate the omission from the PR piece. I know that aphyr concludes that work has been done, "By 2.6.0-rc10, Fauna had addressed almost all issues we identified; some minor work around availability and schema changes is still in progress.", but that doesn't change the fact that the blog post doesn't address their past shortcomings.
Additionally, I am not sure if you fully appreciate the complexity of Jepsen and distributed databases in general.
As for me, I've actually been waiting for this result to recommend the use of FaunaDB in a commercial setting.
It's because I appreciate this work that I felt the blog post didn't do it justice. And I know Jepsen hardly ever passes (ZooKeeper, I believe, did). And I don't take FaunaDB's hard work for granted.
Last I checked, when I visit the Windows website it doesn't say "Really stable now but we've had 1,123,432 critical security bugs in the past!". Same for any other product or open source project.
Acknowledging current limitations is an absolute must, and posting thoughtful articles that delve into a past issue and how it was addressed are a bonus. Otherwise, there's no need for self-flagellation ;)
If you’re running on cloud, we do the upgrade work for you.