4 ms·

if you self-host it you should make sure to keep that updated regularly. Mild disagreement: My philosophy is that you should choose technologies that aren't l

if you self-host it you should make sure to keep that updated regularly. Mild disagreement: My philosophy is that you should choose technologies that aren't likely to introduce breaking changes in the future. As an example, I have sites that were built using ASP.NET version 1.1 that have survived to this day with nothing more than Windows Update on the server and the occasional version bump in the project config when adding a feature that needed the latest and greatest. Compare that to the poor soul who decided to build on top of React when it first came out, and has been rewarded by getting to rewrite his entire application four times in as many years. To return to the point, rather than rewriting around breaking changes from Node x.x to Node y.a, I'd be shopping around for the LTS version of Node x that I could keep the thing running on without intervention from my team.

mritun 8y ago
> As an example, I have sites that were built using ASP.NET version 1.1 that have survived to this day with nothing more than Windows Update You are right; but in my experience those ASP applications also had security holes (CSRF etc) that were never patched. They ultimately either became botnets or faded away when the corp simply faded away. A business that can't afford to pay for cleaning up its business applications is likely to be unable to pay for general upkeep as well. It is simply past the point of being a viable business and is either in limbo or in the grave! See "maintenance free" approach to software as canary in the coal-mine and run away as fast as possible.
- yeahitslikethat 8y ago
  That's not the reality I know. I have apps written and compiled on windows xp that still work to this day. If you work on any non-msft stack I know of, you're constantly updating code for any, sometimes even minor version upgrade.
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    The reality I know is that the people who wrote their apps on Windows XP left the company some years ago, but the apps live on: perfectly functioning, but unable to make requests via anything more secure than TLS1.0 and forcing other people to run servers that continue to accept TLS1.0 years after it was deprecated by everyone else. https://blog.pcisecuritystandards.org/migrating-from-ssl-and-early-tls https://blog.pcisecuritystandards.org/migrating-from-ssl-and... (That's the PCI announcement in 2015 that despite everyone knowing about problems with TLS1.0, they would continue to allow it through 2018 because of all the companies who deferred their technical debt in the manner you seem to be advocating.)
    - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
      That happened to me. All I had to do is patch windows server. I didn't have to change or even recompile my code. I know is hard to believe it's that simple, but it is.
      - dsr_ 8y ago
        So all you had to do was: 1. Know what to do. 2. Have approval to do it. 3. Do it. ... which is to say, maintenance. The fact that maintenance is simple and/or easy doesn't mean it happens by itself.
        collinmanderson 8y ago
        > The fact that maintenance is simple and/or easy doesn't mean it happens by itself. Yes, there will always be _some_ maintenance. The point is it should be as simple and easy as possible.
        dsr_ 8y ago
        I'm telling you that the entire infrastructure of the world is held back by companies who don't do simple maintenance, and your response is to tell me it should be easy to do maintenance. Someone isn't getting the point, and I don't think I can make it any clearer.

mritun 8y ago

> As an example, I have sites that were built using ASP.NET version 1.1 that have survived to this day with nothing more than Windows Update You are right; but in my experience those ASP applications also had security holes (CSRF etc) that were never patched. They ultimately either became botnets or faded away when the corp simply faded away. A business that can't afford to pay for cleaning up its business applications is likely to be unable to pay for general upkeep as well. It is simply past the point of being a viable business and is either in limbo or in the grave! See "maintenance free" approach to software as canary in the coal-mine and run away as fast as possible.

yeahitslikethat 8y ago
That's not the reality I know. I have apps written and compiled on windows xp that still work to this day. If you work on any non-msft stack I know of, you're constantly updating code for any, sometimes even minor version upgrade.
- dsr_ 8y ago
  The reality I know is that the people who wrote their apps on Windows XP left the company some years ago, but the apps live on: perfectly functioning, but unable to make requests via anything more secure than TLS1.0 and forcing other people to run servers that continue to accept TLS1.0 years after it was deprecated by everyone else. https://blog.pcisecuritystandards.org/migrating-from-ssl-and-early-tls https://blog.pcisecuritystandards.org/migrating-from-ssl-and... (That's the PCI announcement in 2015 that despite everyone knowing about problems with TLS1.0, they would continue to allow it through 2018 because of all the companies who deferred their technical debt in the manner you seem to be advocating.)
  - yeahitslikethat 8y ago
    That happened to me. All I had to do is patch windows server. I didn't have to change or even recompile my code. I know is hard to believe it's that simple, but it is.
    - dsr_ 8y ago
      So all you had to do was: 1. Know what to do. 2. Have approval to do it. 3. Do it. ... which is to say, maintenance. The fact that maintenance is simple and/or easy doesn't mean it happens by itself.
      - collinmanderson 8y ago
        > The fact that maintenance is simple and/or easy doesn't mean it happens by itself. Yes, there will always be _some_ maintenance. The point is it should be as simple and easy as possible.
        dsr_ 8y ago
        I'm telling you that the entire infrastructure of the world is held back by companies who don't do simple maintenance, and your response is to tell me it should be easy to do maintenance. Someone isn't getting the point, and I don't think I can make it any clearer.