4 ms·

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

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

> 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.