It is not impossible that this is the case (at least in GP's view). Companies in the space argue between logs and events as structured or unstructured data and how much to exploit that structure. Unstructured is the simple way, and appears to be the approach that TFA prefers, while deep exploitation of structured event collection actually appears to be better for many technical reasons but is more complex.

From what I can tell, Honeycomb is staffed up with operators (SRE types). The GP is thinking about logs, traces, and metrics like a mathematician, and I am not sure that anyone at Honeycomb actually thinks that way.

I think the Veserv was too nice in their comments - the CTO is not "simply confused", she is specifically trying to introduce confusion to separate Honeycomb from competitors.

See, under common definition of observability, Honeycomb is just another platform with upsides and downsides. But if you believe the original post, Honeycomb is "2.0" while everything else is "1.0". So why are you even bothering with feature comparison for with other platforms? Are you _really_ going to go with observability 1.0 (a.k.a. most of Honeycomb's competitors) when 2.0 is out? Just sign up already, preferably for most expensive plan so you can record all those events you'll be generating.

To be fair, the first heading and section of TFA says no one knows what the terminology means anymore.

Which, to GP’s point, is kind of BS.