11 ms·

> Currently, MoonHome is a single-man operation, 100% self-funded. I wouldn't highlight this on the homepage as I don't think it's a plus. I personally wouldn'

> Currently, MoonHome is a single-man operation, 100% self-funded. I wouldn't highlight this on the homepage as I don't think it's a plus. I personally wouldn't want my dev environment to depend on a single person operation.

movedx 5y ago
Compared to what? If you ran this yourself, like I do on LightSail, that would be a (worse) one man operation.
- boolean 5y ago
  Compared to GitHub Codespaces or LightSail which have proper support teams behind the products.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - movedx 5y ago
    LightSail (AWS) don't manage the OS upwards for you.
    - boolean 5y ago
      You're right. However, I'd rather have myself as a single point of failure (for OS and VS Code server) than another individual. Keep in mind that you're also trusting an individual with your codebase.
      - movedx 5y ago
        Good points. I think the OP's service needs to introduce a second person/founder, for sure.
  - freemint 5y ago
    If, as i suspect, this is just a resold Hetzner Cloud at a premium, so i would not worry about reliability.
    - boolean 5y ago
      If there's an issue with the server, you cannot reach out to Hetzner directly. You need to contact the individual behind MoonHome who might be asleep or sick.
      - freemint 5y ago
        True.
- TheDong 5y ago
  The risk of a one-man operation in this case is pretty clear. If the one dude running this gets hit by a bus, your dev environment vanishes and is useless, all data lost. If you instead use LightSail, it's clearly better. You'd need quite a few Amazon employees to be on the same bus before a small accident would result in LightSail vanishing and becoming useless. With both this, and hand-rolled stuff on LightSail, if you get hit by a bus yourself, of course the environment is useless, but that's an identical risk for both of them.
  - blunte 5y ago
    These days, aside from configuration (which is no small thing), one's data is often stored or at least very frequently backed up in the cloud. If this service vanished overnight, you would likely just lose the time it takes to tune a similar dev environment. If you have a git repo with your dot files and such, and you use symlinks where possible in your tools to refer to your master config repo, then re-setting up your dev env can be nearly instant. If this service was database hosting, then I would be more concerned about 1-person operation.
  - movedx 5y ago
    Fair. But would you rather know it's a one man operation and avoid it, or not know, thinking there is a team, and then get stung in the manner you're suggesting?
    - quaintdev 5y ago
      At least owner conveyed us what is the case and we can give him the feedback that this is my concern and ask him if he can resolve this.
    - novok 5y ago
      Usually in big enough contracts as part of due diligence you find out if something is a one man operation or not.
  - PeterStuer 5y ago
    In many midsize and large enterprises critical functions are not redundant. There is just the one person knowing how to do X or Y. If that one person disappears, your service will be down for a long time even if the company still exists.
watermelon0 5y ago
Actually, in my experience, it's easier to get useful support for a paid product/tool/plugin that's developed by a single person or a small team, than for a product made by a big company.
jwr 5y ago
Single founder of a self-funded business here. If you'd rather depend on a larger company, you have to take into account that: 1. The costs will be much higher, because somebody needs to pay for all those salaries, benefits and offices. Hope you are ready to cover those. 2. It's just a façade anyway: a "serious company" makes us feel all warm and fuzzy, but can fold at any time without warning. 3. If it's a VC-funded company, there is no eventual exit outcome that is good for you as a customer: the business will either get acquired (with the service you are using being shut down or folded into something else), go bankrupt, or in the extremely rare case do an IPO (the service you are using will then degrade as the company will be adding mass-uptake features and upselling, see Dropbox). In other words, you aren't really a customer: you are growth material for the company, to be used and discarded once goals are achieved. In contrast to that, single-founder businesses can be stable, mature, and sustainable over many years, much more so than services offered by larger companies.

movedx 5y ago

Compared to what? If you ran this yourself, like I do on LightSail, that would be a (worse) one man operation.

boolean 5y ago
Compared to GitHub Codespaces or LightSail which have proper support teams behind the products.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- movedx 5y ago
  LightSail (AWS) don't manage the OS upwards for you.
  - boolean 5y ago
    You're right. However, I'd rather have myself as a single point of failure (for OS and VS Code server) than another individual. Keep in mind that you're also trusting an individual with your codebase.
    - movedx 5y ago
      Good points. I think the OP's service needs to introduce a second person/founder, for sure.
- freemint 5y ago
  If, as i suspect, this is just a resold Hetzner Cloud at a premium, so i would not worry about reliability.
  - boolean 5y ago
    If there's an issue with the server, you cannot reach out to Hetzner directly. You need to contact the individual behind MoonHome who might be asleep or sick.
    - freemint 5y ago
      True.
TheDong 5y ago
The risk of a one-man operation in this case is pretty clear. If the one dude running this gets hit by a bus, your dev environment vanishes and is useless, all data lost. If you instead use LightSail, it's clearly better. You'd need quite a few Amazon employees to be on the same bus before a small accident would result in LightSail vanishing and becoming useless. With both this, and hand-rolled stuff on LightSail, if you get hit by a bus yourself, of course the environment is useless, but that's an identical risk for both of them.
- blunte 5y ago
  These days, aside from configuration (which is no small thing), one's data is often stored or at least very frequently backed up in the cloud. If this service vanished overnight, you would likely just lose the time it takes to tune a similar dev environment. If you have a git repo with your dot files and such, and you use symlinks where possible in your tools to refer to your master config repo, then re-setting up your dev env can be nearly instant. If this service was database hosting, then I would be more concerned about 1-person operation.
- movedx 5y ago
  Fair. But would you rather know it's a one man operation and avoid it, or not know, thinking there is a team, and then get stung in the manner you're suggesting?
  - quaintdev 5y ago
    At least owner conveyed us what is the case and we can give him the feedback that this is my concern and ask him if he can resolve this.
  - novok 5y ago
    Usually in big enough contracts as part of due diligence you find out if something is a one man operation or not.
- PeterStuer 5y ago
  In many midsize and large enterprises critical functions are not redundant. There is just the one person knowing how to do X or Y. If that one person disappears, your service will be down for a long time even if the company still exists.

watermelon0 5y ago

Actually, in my experience, it's easier to get useful support for a paid product/tool/plugin that's developed by a single person or a small team, than for a product made by a big company.

jwr 5y ago

Single founder of a self-funded business here. If you'd rather depend on a larger company, you have to take into account that: 1. The costs will be much higher, because somebody needs to pay for all those salaries, benefits and offices. Hope you are ready to cover those. 2. It's just a façade anyway: a "serious company" makes us feel all warm and fuzzy, but can fold at any time without warning. 3. If it's a VC-funded company, there is no eventual exit outcome that is good for you as a customer: the business will either get acquired (with the service you are using being shut down or folded into something else), go bankrupt, or in the extremely rare case do an IPO (the service you are using will then degrade as the company will be adding mass-uptake features and upselling, see Dropbox). In other words, you aren't really a customer: you are growth material for the company, to be used and discarded once goals are achieved. In contrast to that, single-founder businesses can be stable, mature, and sustainable over many years, much more so than services offered by larger companies.