3 ms·

This is, in my opinion, a falacy perpetuated by the marketing departments of "big cloud". Don't forget that pre-2006 there was no S3, and we managed just fine.

This is, in my opinion, a falacy perpetuated by the marketing departments of "big cloud". Don't forget that pre-2006 there was no S3, and we managed just fine. They are not challenging skills to learn, the zeitgeist has just convinced itself they are not worth learning

vasco 3y ago
It's condescending to think that someone can't reasonably choose to pay for a service they are capable of doing. Cooking isn't hard either but I still go to restaurants, and don't go around laughing at patrons telling them that they never bothered to learn how to cook if they are there.
- heisenbit 3y ago
  Eating in the restaurant once in a while is fine. Lage range of choices delivered quickly. But is it sustainable? Price higher, usually less healthy and not tailored to special needs. In any case one does it professional IT done right is costly but cheaper than e.g. IT without offsite backup in case of a disaster.
- simonjgreen 3y ago
  Do you eat every meal at a restaurant though? That would not be sustainable. To roll with your analogy it would be like the hospitality sector persuading the majority to ditch home meals entirely
  - vasco 3y ago
    The problem was your assumption which is condescending. I gave you an analogy to make it clearer. Taking the analogy in the second paragraph apart doesn't change the point in the first - it was simply to help illustrate it, but it stands on its own.
    - simonjgreen 3y ago
      It's not condescending at all. You are saying they could reasonably pay for it, but they quite obviously cannot (hence the existence of this whole post). What I'm principally challenging is the assumption that this required effort is substantial. I'm making the point that it is not, certainly (in my view) compared to the effort to run an entire operating system project and all of the ancillaries that come with that. This is an area they have chosen to pay for that (again, in my view) they don't need to. They have gone to great lengths to architect a system that allows deep pinning of very specific versions, it's not a stretch to think about the architecture required to deliver that. Instead they have stopped that line of thinking at [insert S3 here] rather than carry on solving. A direct consequence of that now is a $9k/m hole they need to fill in their budget. I'm being critical, sure, but not condescending. Overall, it frustrates me seeing opinions that operating infrastructure is difficult and therefore must automatically be avoided. In this particular example avoiding operating said infrastructure potentially is putting the project in the red and at risk, but nowhere on the NixOS call for help does it suggest they have considered operating this themselves. And there in is the crux of my point. The zeitgeist has turned against operating infrastructure, and yet is frequently caught out by the cost of this decision.
      - vasco 3y ago
        > They are not challenging skills to learn, the zeitgeist has just convinced itself they are not worth learning Next time you see someone paying for something you think it's easy to learn, that the "zeitgeist told them not to learn", go up to them and say what I quoted and you'll see real fast if it's condescending or not.
        Arch-TK 3y ago
        This is a silly thread. The difference in situations here is literally that on the one hand large corporations have spent money to market the idea that their services are essential because the alternative is incredibly difficult. On the other hand, McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, "Big Restaurant" etc have not spent large quantities of money trying to persuade the populace that cooking at home is incredibly difficult. It's possible to sell someone a convenience without also telling that person that it's the only real option and this is what the person you're replying to is highlighting. It's not condescending, it's the reality of the situation. Yes in the examples you've described it would be condescending but in the situation we're actually talking about there are actually large numbers of people who genuinely believe (as a result of successful marketing campaigns) that the equivalent to cooking your own meals at home is incredibly dangerous, difficult, expensive and error prone.
usr1106 3y ago
Who managed just fine? IT-based services very a minor fraction of what they are today. And IT departments in some random company were much bigger.
- vanviegen 3y ago
  > And IT departments in some random company were much bigger. Not sure about that. There appear to be just as many people in IT, it's just that they're not that technical anymore, mostly producing policy documents and pushing tickets around. The actual work is outsourced to the cloud, SaaS products and outside consultants (for duct taping the mishmash of SaaS products together). But that may be just my lacking understanding of my strange little part of the globe.

vasco 3y ago

It's condescending to think that someone can't reasonably choose to pay for a service they are capable of doing. Cooking isn't hard either but I still go to restaurants, and don't go around laughing at patrons telling them that they never bothered to learn how to cook if they are there.

heisenbit 3y ago
Eating in the restaurant once in a while is fine. Lage range of choices delivered quickly. But is it sustainable? Price higher, usually less healthy and not tailored to special needs. In any case one does it professional IT done right is costly but cheaper than e.g. IT without offsite backup in case of a disaster.
simonjgreen 3y ago
Do you eat every meal at a restaurant though? That would not be sustainable. To roll with your analogy it would be like the hospitality sector persuading the majority to ditch home meals entirely
- vasco 3y ago
  The problem was your assumption which is condescending. I gave you an analogy to make it clearer. Taking the analogy in the second paragraph apart doesn't change the point in the first - it was simply to help illustrate it, but it stands on its own.
  - simonjgreen 3y ago
    It's not condescending at all. You are saying they could reasonably pay for it, but they quite obviously cannot (hence the existence of this whole post). What I'm principally challenging is the assumption that this required effort is substantial. I'm making the point that it is not, certainly (in my view) compared to the effort to run an entire operating system project and all of the ancillaries that come with that. This is an area they have chosen to pay for that (again, in my view) they don't need to. They have gone to great lengths to architect a system that allows deep pinning of very specific versions, it's not a stretch to think about the architecture required to deliver that. Instead they have stopped that line of thinking at [insert S3 here] rather than carry on solving. A direct consequence of that now is a $9k/m hole they need to fill in their budget. I'm being critical, sure, but not condescending. Overall, it frustrates me seeing opinions that operating infrastructure is difficult and therefore must automatically be avoided. In this particular example avoiding operating said infrastructure potentially is putting the project in the red and at risk, but nowhere on the NixOS call for help does it suggest they have considered operating this themselves. And there in is the crux of my point. The zeitgeist has turned against operating infrastructure, and yet is frequently caught out by the cost of this decision.
    - vasco 3y ago
      > They are not challenging skills to learn, the zeitgeist has just convinced itself they are not worth learning Next time you see someone paying for something you think it's easy to learn, that the "zeitgeist told them not to learn", go up to them and say what I quoted and you'll see real fast if it's condescending or not.
      - Arch-TK 3y ago
        This is a silly thread. The difference in situations here is literally that on the one hand large corporations have spent money to market the idea that their services are essential because the alternative is incredibly difficult. On the other hand, McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, "Big Restaurant" etc have not spent large quantities of money trying to persuade the populace that cooking at home is incredibly difficult. It's possible to sell someone a convenience without also telling that person that it's the only real option and this is what the person you're replying to is highlighting. It's not condescending, it's the reality of the situation. Yes in the examples you've described it would be condescending but in the situation we're actually talking about there are actually large numbers of people who genuinely believe (as a result of successful marketing campaigns) that the equivalent to cooking your own meals at home is incredibly dangerous, difficult, expensive and error prone.

usr1106 3y ago

Who managed just fine? IT-based services very a minor fraction of what they are today. And IT departments in some random company were much bigger.

vanviegen 3y ago
> And IT departments in some random company were much bigger. Not sure about that. There appear to be just as many people in IT, it's just that they're not that technical anymore, mostly producing policy documents and pushing tickets around. The actual work is outsourced to the cloud, SaaS products and outside consultants (for duct taping the mishmash of SaaS products together). But that may be just my lacking understanding of my strange little part of the globe.