5 ms·

They did not make the decision that the cloud is cost-efficient. They had someone else paying their cloud bill and the cloud is easy for them. Now that the som

They did not make the decision that the cloud is cost-efficient. They had someone else paying their cloud bill and the cloud is easy for them. Now that the someone else is pulling out they need to think for the first time what would be cost-efficient.

traceroute66 3y ago
> Now that the someone else is pulling out they need to think for the first time They should have thought about that on day zero. If someone else is picking up the tab then there is ALWAYS the possibility that someone will pull out for whatever reason.
- usr1106 3y ago
  When you start an open-source project you don't start with thinking what will happen when you have Terabytes of traffic. Even for a start-up it's generally not advised to spend considerable effort on scalability before you have any customers.
  - traceroute66 3y ago
    >When you start an open-source project ... Rubbish. Its nothing to do with "start-up" or "open-source project". As I clearly said. Its Dummies 101 ... if "somebody" is giving me money, then only an idiot doesn't consider what happens if that "somebody" stops giving me money. Its not rocket science, its basic planning.
    - regularjack 3y ago
      What you're describing is premature optimisation. They made the right call going with the solution that required the least effort. Now that that solution is no longer viable, they can spend resources addressing it. Not fixing problems that don't exist is the right call.
      - traceroute66 3y ago
        > What you're describing is premature optimisation. Have you bothered to read my post ? I don't know how I can make it any clearer ? 1. NixOS were dependent on DONATED service(s) 2. It is not sensible to assume the service will continue being donated forever, that is just foolhardy. Anyone who has ever run a business or has been involved in charitable work knows this. NixOS appears to have just learnt the hard way instead.
        tedivm 3y ago
        They had assurances that they wouldn't just have it ripped from them, are being given time to find a replacement, and are engaging multiple avenues to do so. They are having absolutely no downtime from this process. You're making assumptions that aren't warranted at all to make a point that really just seems like an excuse for you to be angry at random strangers. I'm honestly not sure why you are so upset (and rude) about this.
        traceroute66 3y ago
        > They had assurances that they wouldn't just have it ripped from them, are being given time to find a replacement Sure, but we're still talking after the event here. The overall point of being over-reliant on a single donor in the first place remains the fundamental problem that could have been avoided. I suggest we draw a line in the sand and agree to disagree.
      - amusable3539 3y ago
        I see people usually use the term "premature optimisation" to mean "I wouldn't think about this thing, so no one should". Also people really take that one quote and consider it gospel, forgetting that "premature" is contextual and subjective. Meanwhile I think it's a bit silly that they didn't have a plan B for 425 TiB (!) of data and are scrambling to figure it out now. It's not about "fixing problems that don't exist", it's called "planning ahead for a scenario that is practically guaranteed to happen" and has high risk for the future of the project if they don't have such a plan. They created essentially a SPOF where "failure" was losing the financial goodwill with some company.

traceroute66 3y ago

> Now that the someone else is pulling out they need to think for the first time They should have thought about that on day zero. If someone else is picking up the tab then there is ALWAYS the possibility that someone will pull out for whatever reason.

usr1106 3y ago
When you start an open-source project you don't start with thinking what will happen when you have Terabytes of traffic. Even for a start-up it's generally not advised to spend considerable effort on scalability before you have any customers.
- traceroute66 3y ago
  >When you start an open-source project ... Rubbish. Its nothing to do with "start-up" or "open-source project". As I clearly said. Its Dummies 101 ... if "somebody" is giving me money, then only an idiot doesn't consider what happens if that "somebody" stops giving me money. Its not rocket science, its basic planning.
  - regularjack 3y ago
    What you're describing is premature optimisation. They made the right call going with the solution that required the least effort. Now that that solution is no longer viable, they can spend resources addressing it. Not fixing problems that don't exist is the right call.
    - traceroute66 3y ago
      > What you're describing is premature optimisation. Have you bothered to read my post ? I don't know how I can make it any clearer ? 1. NixOS were dependent on DONATED service(s) 2. It is not sensible to assume the service will continue being donated forever, that is just foolhardy. Anyone who has ever run a business or has been involved in charitable work knows this. NixOS appears to have just learnt the hard way instead.
      - tedivm 3y ago
        They had assurances that they wouldn't just have it ripped from them, are being given time to find a replacement, and are engaging multiple avenues to do so. They are having absolutely no downtime from this process. You're making assumptions that aren't warranted at all to make a point that really just seems like an excuse for you to be angry at random strangers. I'm honestly not sure why you are so upset (and rude) about this.
        traceroute66 3y ago
        > They had assurances that they wouldn't just have it ripped from them, are being given time to find a replacement Sure, but we're still talking after the event here. The overall point of being over-reliant on a single donor in the first place remains the fundamental problem that could have been avoided. I suggest we draw a line in the sand and agree to disagree.
    - amusable3539 3y ago
      I see people usually use the term "premature optimisation" to mean "I wouldn't think about this thing, so no one should". Also people really take that one quote and consider it gospel, forgetting that "premature" is contextual and subjective. Meanwhile I think it's a bit silly that they didn't have a plan B for 425 TiB (!) of data and are scrambling to figure it out now. It's not about "fixing problems that don't exist", it's called "planning ahead for a scenario that is practically guaranteed to happen" and has high risk for the future of the project if they don't have such a plan. They created essentially a SPOF where "failure" was losing the financial goodwill with some company.