3 ms·

> It's the fact that a company of 10k employees do not need to be at the mercy of a third-party vendor. Oh man, where do I even start here. Have you ever worke

by mbesto 4y ago

> It's the fact that a company of 10k employees do not need to be at the mercy of a third-party vendor. Oh man, where do I even start here. Have you ever worked in a company with 10k employees? In IT at a company with 10k employees? > Github/Jira/CI/Contentful/Dropbox/Figma/etc/etc/etc, when there are alternatives that could work and people don't even try them. So let me get this straight. You expect every organization with 10k employees to: - Find talent to build, operate, and maintain on said systems - Keep that talent - Train employees on said systems. Cheryl in accounting has only used SAP and you want her to understand how to use XYZ? - Spend the time NOT having the solution available to them while they wait for said system to be built/implemented. - And and and... > No, I am not. Check the comment that I referenced. I suggested a scenario where you can hire someone to implement the solution and have an ongoing support contract for a fraction of the cost from 1Password. You absolutely are. You clearly have no understanding when it comes to what is required to "just hire someone to do it". > Surely any Engineering Manager worth anything Yaaa, no true scotsmen! The trope of "just hire someone" needs to die. Orgs (of all sizes) regularly do buy vs build analysis all of the time. Saying that one is better than the other unilaterally is just plain wrong.

rglullis 4y ago
> Orgs (of all sizes) regularly do buy vs build analysis all of the time. The point is not "buy vs build". The point is that one does not exclude the other. Sally from accounting has only used SAP? Fine, keep paying for it, but also invest in the development of an alternative. Also go to Sally and offer training in this alternative. Ask Sally what is missing in the alternative compared to what she's used to. Take her feedback to the developers and tell them "If you solve X, Y and Z, we might be able to drop SAP and switch to you". > You expect every organization with 10k employees to find talent to build, operate, and maintain on said systems. No. I'm expecting that some of them will be able to it in-house. Others will look for a third-party vendor that does not lock them in. Others will continue using the proprietary solution BUT will set aside part of their budget to invest in open source alternatives, as a way to create an open source alternative that can help negotiate with the proprietary vendor. And others could do all of it, or none of it.
- mbesto 4y ago
  > The point is not "buy vs build". The point is that one does not exclude the other. This whole discussion is literally "buy vs build" and the fact that you don't know that means you're way out of your league here.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Something troubling you? Is making personal attacks going to make you feel any better? If putting me down helps your self-esteem: my very first comment started with "I was not cut out to work for a large organization". So cheer up, you get to wear the big man pants, ok? The one thing that bugs me though... Maybe it is me being out of my league, but why can't bigger companies at least foment the develop of alternatives that reduce their dependency on third-party, closed service providers? Another thing that I fail to grasp: why is it that smart and distinguished people like you always put a response in absolute, all-or-nothing terms? Case in point: when presented with one possible strategy, your counterargument was "do you expect all companies to do this?". The answer is (obviously) negative. In my childish mind, I thought it was possible to have different companies doing different things. Can you explain why this type of thinking is so clearly wrong? What do they teach in the Big Boys League that show how that absolute conformity and total adherence to the rules is the surest way to win?
    - mbesto 4y ago
      > but why can't bigger companies at least foment the develop of alternatives that reduce their dependency on third-party, closed service providers? They do. This is literally called "buy vs build". > why is it that smart and distinguished people like you always put a response in absolute, all-or-nothing terms? Because you started the conversation with absolute, all or nothing terms, which I countered. Read these two statements and tell me which is absolute, all-or-nothing and which isn't: *It's the fact that a company of 10k employees do not need to be at the mercy of a third-party vendor.* *Orgs (of all sizes) regularly do buy vs build analysis all of the time.* > What do they teach in the Big Boys League that show how that absolute conformity and total adherence to the rules is the surest way to win? Lay off of the conspiracy kool-aid will ya? Lots of reasonable people are disagreeing with you because we've all experienced this, not because some holier-than-thou entity is telling us to. > Something troubling you? Not the slightest, thanks though.

by mbesto 4y ago

rglullis 4y ago

> Orgs (of all sizes) regularly do buy vs build analysis all of the time. The point is not "buy vs build". The point is that one does not exclude the other. Sally from accounting has only used SAP? Fine, keep paying for it, but also invest in the development of an alternative. Also go to Sally and offer training in this alternative. Ask Sally what is missing in the alternative compared to what she's used to. Take her feedback to the developers and tell them "If you solve X, Y and Z, we might be able to drop SAP and switch to you". > You expect every organization with 10k employees to find talent to build, operate, and maintain on said systems. No. I'm expecting that some of them will be able to it in-house. Others will look for a third-party vendor that does not lock them in. Others will continue using the proprietary solution BUT will set aside part of their budget to invest in open source alternatives, as a way to create an open source alternative that can help negotiate with the proprietary vendor. And others could do all of it, or none of it.

mbesto 4y ago
> The point is not "buy vs build". The point is that one does not exclude the other. This whole discussion is literally "buy vs build" and the fact that you don't know that means you're way out of your league here.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Something troubling you? Is making personal attacks going to make you feel any better? If putting me down helps your self-esteem: my very first comment started with "I was not cut out to work for a large organization". So cheer up, you get to wear the big man pants, ok? The one thing that bugs me though... Maybe it is me being out of my league, but why can't bigger companies at least foment the develop of alternatives that reduce their dependency on third-party, closed service providers? Another thing that I fail to grasp: why is it that smart and distinguished people like you always put a response in absolute, all-or-nothing terms? Case in point: when presented with one possible strategy, your counterargument was "do you expect all companies to do this?". The answer is (obviously) negative. In my childish mind, I thought it was possible to have different companies doing different things. Can you explain why this type of thinking is so clearly wrong? What do they teach in the Big Boys League that show how that absolute conformity and total adherence to the rules is the surest way to win?
  - mbesto 4y ago
    > but why can't bigger companies at least foment the develop of alternatives that reduce their dependency on third-party, closed service providers? They do. This is literally called "buy vs build". > why is it that smart and distinguished people like you always put a response in absolute, all-or-nothing terms? Because you started the conversation with absolute, all or nothing terms, which I countered. Read these two statements and tell me which is absolute, all-or-nothing and which isn't: *It's the fact that a company of 10k employees do not need to be at the mercy of a third-party vendor.* *Orgs (of all sizes) regularly do buy vs build analysis all of the time.* > What do they teach in the Big Boys League that show how that absolute conformity and total adherence to the rules is the surest way to win? Lay off of the conspiracy kool-aid will ya? Lots of reasonable people are disagreeing with you because we've all experienced this, not because some holier-than-thou entity is telling us to. > Something troubling you? Not the slightest, thanks though.