4 ms·

> 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 do

by 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.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    Nice to know is all good with you, it's a shame though that you resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. > This is literally called "buy vs build". "Buy vs build" presupposes an either/or decision. Like there is no point in building an alternative once a company has decided to buy something or vice-versa. It also seems to implicate that if a company chooses to "build", that they will be taking all of the burden and costs of development to themselves. What I'm talking about is beyond the buy/build dichotomy. What I am advocating is for companies to treat all and any systems that they depend on as a risk, and never stop looking or financing the development of F/OSS alternatives that can mitigate these risks. This does not mean that all companies should stop using Github and implement their own source repo/CI systems. It just means that companies should look for a way to hedge their bets. And if you think that this is something that companies do "all the time", I'd be eager to know of any, e.g, Design Agencies that support/contribute to the development of Gimp/Inkscape as insurance against their heavy dependence on Adobe Suite. Or companies (of any size) that allocate part of their budget to fund F/OSS alternatives to the SaaS solutions that they use. > Lots of reasonable people are disagreeing because we've all experienced this What I am seeing is "lots" of people attacking a strawman like the one you created. Maybe my phrasing was off, but my original question was "what would be the size of the team where having someone in-house to mitigate the risk of this dependency becomes clear?", and somehow this got translated (by you and others) to "why don't they just do everything in-house?".
    - mbesto 4y ago
      > it's a shame though that you resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. > but I wonder what would be the point where it wouldn't take a bean-counter to say Name-calling you say? > Maybe my phrasing was off, but my original question was "what would be the size of the team where having someone in-house to mitigate the risk of this dependency becomes clear?" It wasn't. > It's the fact that a company of 10k employees do not need to be at the mercy of a third-party vendor. Re-read what you wrote again. You're just not discussing in good faith...we're done here.
      - rglullis 4y ago

by mbesto 4y ago

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.
- rglullis 4y ago
  Nice to know is all good with you, it's a shame though that you resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. > This is literally called "buy vs build". "Buy vs build" presupposes an either/or decision. Like there is no point in building an alternative once a company has decided to buy something or vice-versa. It also seems to implicate that if a company chooses to "build", that they will be taking all of the burden and costs of development to themselves. What I'm talking about is beyond the buy/build dichotomy. What I am advocating is for companies to treat all and any systems that they depend on as a risk, and never stop looking or financing the development of F/OSS alternatives that can mitigate these risks. This does not mean that all companies should stop using Github and implement their own source repo/CI systems. It just means that companies should look for a way to hedge their bets. And if you think that this is something that companies do "all the time", I'd be eager to know of any, e.g, Design Agencies that support/contribute to the development of Gimp/Inkscape as insurance against their heavy dependence on Adobe Suite. Or companies (of any size) that allocate part of their budget to fund F/OSS alternatives to the SaaS solutions that they use. > Lots of reasonable people are disagreeing because we've all experienced this What I am seeing is "lots" of people attacking a strawman like the one you created. Maybe my phrasing was off, but my original question was "what would be the size of the team where having someone in-house to mitigate the risk of this dependency becomes clear?", and somehow this got translated (by you and others) to "why don't they just do everything in-house?".
  - mbesto 4y ago
    > it's a shame though that you resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. > but I wonder what would be the point where it wouldn't take a bean-counter to say Name-calling you say? > Maybe my phrasing was off, but my original question was "what would be the size of the team where having someone in-house to mitigate the risk of this dependency becomes clear?" It wasn't. > It's the fact that a company of 10k employees do not need to be at the mercy of a third-party vendor. Re-read what you wrote again. You're just not discussing in good faith...we're done here.
    - rglullis 4y ago