Dare Obasanjo has a few words for the complexity oriented:

Actually, a lot of the stuff he talks about with regards to SLAs, monitoring business processes and regulatory issues are all things we face as part of building Windows Live. However it seems Jeff missed my point. The point is that folks building systems in places like Yahoo, Amazon and Windows Live are building systems that have to solve problems that are at the minimum just as complex as those of your average medium sized to large scale business. From his post, Jeff seems to agree with this core assertion. Yet people at these companies are embracing approaches such as RESTful web services and using scripting languages which are both often dissed as not being enterprise by complexity enterprise architects.

He goes on to give an example, comparing RSS to WS-Eventing:

Just because a problem seems complex doesn't mean it needs a complex technology to solve it. For example, at its core RSS solves the same problem as WS-Eventing. I can describe all sorts of scenarios where RSS falls down and WS-Eventing does not. However RSS is good enough for a large number of scenarios for a smidgeon of the complexity cost of WS-Eventing. Then there are other examples where you have complex technologies like WS-ReliableMessaging that add complexity to the mix but often don't solve the real problems facing large scale services today. See my post More on Pragmatism and Web Services for my issues with WS-ReliableMessaging.  

The bottom line is, you don't want too much of that enterprisey stuff on you.