3 ms·

> not unlike this whole stupid pets-vs-cattle debate with servers What am I missing here? Those are in no way whatsoever related. One is a group of humans and

> not unlike this whole stupid pets-vs-cattle debate with servers What am I missing here? Those are in no way whatsoever related. One is a group of humans and the other is a group of machines, the rules/expectations are 100% different. You should not treat humans are replaceable cogs for moral reasons and the very real reason that they simply aren't. Humans are not 1 to 1 comparable (not that it would be ok to dehumanize them if they weren't) so that way of thinking is not only gross but it's silly/short sighted/wrong. I've seen companies treat employees as cogs then be all surprised when they fire/layoff one of those "cogs" which causes a mass exodus (sometimes resulting in literal decades of experience walking out the door in the span of months). Servers/computers are a whole different ball game. For all intents and purposes a server is a server is a server (blah, blah, same instance size, disk, etc).

x86x87 4y ago
That was the point. You should not treat humans like you treat machines but this happens all the time.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  Hmm, I read it as "just they wanted to treat humans as 'fungible, replaceable cogs in the machine' it's stupid that some people want to do the same things with server". I think the "stupid" modifier is what really pushed me to think that was the case as I don't think the pets-vs-cattle debate for servers is stupid, it makes a lot of sense.
  - pdntspa 4y ago
    I think that both mentalities with regards to servers have their place, but right now it is very fashionable to bash servers as "pets". Like Windows vs Mac or Playstation vs Xbox, the debate itself is stupid. For either humans or servers, everyone wants to commoditize them. Maybe stupid isnt the best word but I feel strongly in both cases.
    - unethical_ban 4y ago
      If you think "treat servers as cattle" is stupid or has no merit, I question your credentials. Decoupling config, app state and the app itself has a lot of upside in certain cases.
      - mc32 4y ago
        For some people servers have their individual "servernalities".
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Like all metaphors, the pets vs. cattle one started to break down if you poked at it too hard. But it came from a place where individual servers were highly valued and were often at least somewhat unique. Standard operating environments had been around for a while but the "monitor the server's health and nurse it back to health if something's wrong" sentiment was still pretty widespread. Even redundancy tended to be hardware-based to a significant degree. How much did the IT industry put into things like failover Unix clusters (and VAX/VMS etc. before that) over the years?
    - lolinder 4y ago
      The difference is that servers are cogs in a machine. It's often desirable to treat them as fungible and interchangeable, and there are no ethical problems with doing so.
      - brianwawok 4y ago
        What if the server has AI and a name?
        Jensson 4y ago
        Current AI are cattle, it doesn't matter if you shut it down or put it up on 100 different servers, it behaves the same.
        lioeters 4y ago
KvanteKat 4y ago
Aren't you just agreeing with the post you're replying to here, or am I missing something? Both of you make the central point that humans and servers are fundamentally different and that descisions that involve humans must invariably have a moral dimaneion as far as I can see.
- joshstrange 4y ago
  Maybe I did misinterpret, see my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33122403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33122403
- lolinder 4y ago
  I took OP the same way, probably because of the use of the word "stupid" to describe the pets-vs-cattle debate. It felt to me that OP was drawing an analogy between said "stupid" debate and the way MBAs discuss employees, rather than drawing a contrast between the two.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Treating servers as cattle is the same black and white thinking as treating humans as resources. Servers require considered care and if you outsource that you get what you get at some operational expense.
sam0x17 4y ago
My interpretation was "at least we treat servers like living things, can't say the same for how business managers treat employees"
tjr225 4y ago
If someone calls your idiom of choice stupid and this makes you feel any type of way at all it might be time for a breather.
lkrubner 4y ago
"One is a group of humans and the other is a group of machines, the rules/expectations are 100% different." This is exactly what they were saying in the comment you are replying to.
jahsome 4y ago
Are you arguing or reiterating? What am I missing here?

x86x87 4y ago

That was the point. You should not treat humans like you treat machines but this happens all the time.

joshstrange 4y ago
Hmm, I read it as "just they wanted to treat humans as 'fungible, replaceable cogs in the machine' it's stupid that some people want to do the same things with server". I think the "stupid" modifier is what really pushed me to think that was the case as I don't think the pets-vs-cattle debate for servers is stupid, it makes a lot of sense.
- pdntspa 4y ago
  I think that both mentalities with regards to servers have their place, but right now it is very fashionable to bash servers as "pets". Like Windows vs Mac or Playstation vs Xbox, the debate itself is stupid. For either humans or servers, everyone wants to commoditize them. Maybe stupid isnt the best word but I feel strongly in both cases.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    If you think "treat servers as cattle" is stupid or has no merit, I question your credentials. Decoupling config, app state and the app itself has a lot of upside in certain cases.
    - mc32 4y ago
      For some people servers have their individual "servernalities".
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Like all metaphors, the pets vs. cattle one started to break down if you poked at it too hard. But it came from a place where individual servers were highly valued and were often at least somewhat unique. Standard operating environments had been around for a while but the "monitor the server's health and nurse it back to health if something's wrong" sentiment was still pretty widespread. Even redundancy tended to be hardware-based to a significant degree. How much did the IT industry put into things like failover Unix clusters (and VAX/VMS etc. before that) over the years?
  - lolinder 4y ago
    The difference is that servers are cogs in a machine. It's often desirable to treat them as fungible and interchangeable, and there are no ethical problems with doing so.
    - brianwawok 4y ago
      What if the server has AI and a name?
      - Jensson 4y ago
        Current AI are cattle, it doesn't matter if you shut it down or put it up on 100 different servers, it behaves the same.
      - lioeters 4y ago

KvanteKat 4y ago

Aren't you just agreeing with the post you're replying to here, or am I missing something? Both of you make the central point that humans and servers are fundamentally different and that descisions that involve humans must invariably have a moral dimaneion as far as I can see.

joshstrange 4y ago
Maybe I did misinterpret, see my reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33122403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33122403
lolinder 4y ago
I took OP the same way, probably because of the use of the word "stupid" to describe the pets-vs-cattle debate. It felt to me that OP was drawing an analogy between said "stupid" debate and the way MBAs discuss employees, rather than drawing a contrast between the two.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Treating servers as cattle is the same black and white thinking as treating humans as resources. Servers require considered care and if you outsource that you get what you get at some operational expense.

sam0x17 4y ago

My interpretation was "at least we treat servers like living things, can't say the same for how business managers treat employees"

tjr225 4y ago

If someone calls your idiom of choice stupid and this makes you feel any type of way at all it might be time for a breather.

lkrubner 4y ago

"One is a group of humans and the other is a group of machines, the rules/expectations are 100% different." This is exactly what they were saying in the comment you are replying to.

jahsome 4y ago

Are you arguing or reiterating? What am I missing here?