3 ms·

> So yeah, this is not a question that needs asking anymore. Clearly it is a question that needs to be asked, because... it was asked. That's how questions wor

> So yeah, this is not a question that needs asking anymore. Clearly it is a question that needs to be asked, because... it was asked. That's how questions work. > Build your thing on the web. You literally side-stepped all the maintenance bullshittery that is required for a reliable SaaS app with "but you need a website anyway", as if desktop app developers don't use GitHub Pages, SquareSpace, static HTML served from S3, or any number of other "zero maintenance" web SITE hosting solutions that will not in any way support running a web APP.

jasonkester 9y ago
> You literally side-stepped all the maintenance that is required for a reliable SaaS app My post was only a few paragraphs long, but one of them does in fact address this. I've spent maybe 400 hours this year working on my little handful of SaaS products. Zero of them were spent maintaining the server that they run on. On the effort scale, it's nothing compared to writing the software and supporting customers.
- stephenr 9y ago
  > The only downside you mention is that you have to run a webserver. But you have to run a server anyway. Not necessarily. Plenty of desktop app 'brochure' sites use a hosted solution, so zero web server maintenance required. > And if you pick the right tech stack, those things don't tend to go down all that often. What's "the right stack"? I'm sure Amazon and Google would love to know your secrets to maintenance free SaaS. > You don't need "Five Nines" of availability for most types of business software, anyway. Three Nines is fine. Even Two won't generally lose you any customers. Two nines is >7 hours a month downtime. That's basically one business day per month, the app is unavailable. Given that this is in addition to any scheduled downtime for things like upgrades, server maintenance, I'm not sure I'd be aiming for that as your baseline. I get that the OP wants passive income from this endeavour. The way to achieve that is not to half-ass the infrastructure on a SaaS product.
  - jasonkester 9y ago
    I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from with the hostility. It sounds like your experience must be a lot different than mine. I run a fairly standard Microsoft stack of ASP.NET, IIS, C#, SQL Server. Chosen for its boringness and reliability, because as I've said before, I really don't like having to worry about hardware: http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/happiness-is-a-boring-stack.html http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/happiness-is-a-boring-... I'm also speaking from experience about the downtime thing. I used to have a rather sketchy ISP, and would see those 7 hour downtimes from time to time. I would occasionally get an email or two from customers who noticed, but never lost a single paying account as a result of downtime. Maybe it's just picking a market that can live without your thing for an hour if need be, but then that's the goal we're talking about of a SaaS business that runs itself without your intervention. People worry about a lot of things before starting a business. They use things like "what if the server goes down" and "what if my customers call me every night at 3am" as excuses not to even try. But when you actually do try, you find that none of those things you worried about end up happening. That's not to say it's easy. But the things you're raising as issues just aren't. In my experience.
    - stephenr 9y ago
      Servers absolutely do "go down", and it absolutely is an issue. How this is even a discussion point is beyond me.
      - donovanm 9y ago
        Sure, but as a one man operation trying to get Google level reliability is out of the budget.
        stephenr 9y ago
        There's a lot of difference between running a webapp on a single unmaintained server and "google level reliability"
      - jasonkester 9y ago

jasonkester 9y ago

> You literally side-stepped all the maintenance that is required for a reliable SaaS app My post was only a few paragraphs long, but one of them does in fact address this. I've spent maybe 400 hours this year working on my little handful of SaaS products. Zero of them were spent maintaining the server that they run on. On the effort scale, it's nothing compared to writing the software and supporting customers.

stephenr 9y ago
> The only downside you mention is that you have to run a webserver. But you have to run a server anyway. Not necessarily. Plenty of desktop app 'brochure' sites use a hosted solution, so zero web server maintenance required. > And if you pick the right tech stack, those things don't tend to go down all that often. What's "the right stack"? I'm sure Amazon and Google would love to know your secrets to maintenance free SaaS. > You don't need "Five Nines" of availability for most types of business software, anyway. Three Nines is fine. Even Two won't generally lose you any customers. Two nines is >7 hours a month downtime. That's basically one business day per month, the app is unavailable. Given that this is in addition to any scheduled downtime for things like upgrades, server maintenance, I'm not sure I'd be aiming for that as your baseline. I get that the OP wants passive income from this endeavour. The way to achieve that is not to half-ass the infrastructure on a SaaS product.
- jasonkester 9y ago
  I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from with the hostility. It sounds like your experience must be a lot different than mine. I run a fairly standard Microsoft stack of ASP.NET, IIS, C#, SQL Server. Chosen for its boringness and reliability, because as I've said before, I really don't like having to worry about hardware: http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/happiness-is-a-boring-stack.html http://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/happiness-is-a-boring-... I'm also speaking from experience about the downtime thing. I used to have a rather sketchy ISP, and would see those 7 hour downtimes from time to time. I would occasionally get an email or two from customers who noticed, but never lost a single paying account as a result of downtime. Maybe it's just picking a market that can live without your thing for an hour if need be, but then that's the goal we're talking about of a SaaS business that runs itself without your intervention. People worry about a lot of things before starting a business. They use things like "what if the server goes down" and "what if my customers call me every night at 3am" as excuses not to even try. But when you actually do try, you find that none of those things you worried about end up happening. That's not to say it's easy. But the things you're raising as issues just aren't. In my experience.
  - stephenr 9y ago
    Servers absolutely do "go down", and it absolutely is an issue. How this is even a discussion point is beyond me.
    - donovanm 9y ago
      Sure, but as a one man operation trying to get Google level reliability is out of the budget.
      - stephenr 9y ago
        There's a lot of difference between running a webapp on a single unmaintained server and "google level reliability"
    - jasonkester 9y ago