4 ms·

So the article is satire and the company non-existant, but what is it alluring to exactly. What is it trying to say?

hennell 3y ago
People are too obsessed with tech stacks and chasing the best framework they forget the thing they're actually trying to build.
Moto7451 3y ago
For my experience, this article is one of the scenes in my personal version of This is Spinal Tap. Three times I’ve been involved in a Kubernetes (or competitor) migration where the plot gets lost along the way. At my current company we have canceled the product roadmap to focus on year three of the migration and we likely have at least another year to go. No one can tell me why our current ECS based deployments are a problem. No one bothered to train people on appropriate uses of Kafka before double abstracting it into a framework. But hey, the board was promised a cost savings and globally available product from this effort so at least the executive that promised it all has two more years to figure out how to make good on it. Best of all is we have a new CTO and he has openly questioned why we don’t just use Kubernetes itself instead of the couple of Hashicorp products we’ve settled on. Maybe I’ll get to do this a fourth time once we finish the current migration.
- beAbU 3y ago
  > we have canceled the product roadmap to focus on year three of the migration This is the most surreal thing I've read on here. You went from a company that delivers some product, to a company that delivers a migration. You sure your company is not the one in the OP? ;)
- secondcoming 3y ago
  > No one can tell me why our current ECS based deployments are a problem. The problem is it's not Kubernetes. I am in the exact same situation. New manager arrives and wants to move to Kubernetes, just because.
  - Moto7451 3y ago
    Correct. It’s not Kubernetes. They just chose that (and similar software) because it’s “what you’re supposed to use.”
- threeseed 3y ago
  It sounds to me like you're an engineer who is out of the loop. Because suggesting Hashicorp over Kubernetes makes a lot of sense so long as you are ignorant about budgets and costs. Because from experience they are one of the worst vendors around at squeezing money out of their customers. I imagine if you were the CTO you would likely agree with them.
  - Moto7451 3y ago
    The problem is not about the vendor at all. It’s not even about Kubernetes. It’s about the problem being solved. I’m not an IC so I get to see all the behind the scenes. We’re just cosplaying a large tech org when this company, like the others I’ve been at, is a sales company with an IT team. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. It’s a good business to be in. We just don’t need a complex runtime with software defined networking to deploy a series of three server blue/green deployments for relatively low traffic use cases. The problem itself has been the same for the past three companies I’ve worked at.
inopinatus 3y ago
adhesive knitting > baroque scaffolding
lostlogin 3y ago
It’s not alluring at all, but it’s eluding to a recurring shitty theme with such ‘upgrades’.
- Tommah 3y ago
  Ahem, you mean alluding, not eluding.
  - techwiz137 3y ago
    Exactly. It was my mistake.
- weikju 3y ago
  Or alluding to…
starbugs 3y ago
> So the article is satire and the company non-existant, but what is it alluring to exactly. What is it trying to say? Of course these companies exist and there is a core of truth in what the article says. Otherwise, it wouldn't be satire.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
I think it's a bit like a rorschach test, maybe. I would attribute the 11-week time period to a dysfunctional organization, but someone who doesn't like K8S and prefer to run everything themselves may interpret it as implying K8S is overcomplicated. In reality, though, a migration to K8S in most organizations won't take only 11 weeks because most organizations are completely dysfunctional.

People are too obsessed with tech stacks and chasing the best framework they forget the thing they're actually trying to build.

Moto7451 3y ago

For my experience, this article is one of the scenes in my personal version of This is Spinal Tap. Three times I’ve been involved in a Kubernetes (or competitor) migration where the plot gets lost along the way. At my current company we have canceled the product roadmap to focus on year three of the migration and we likely have at least another year to go. No one can tell me why our current ECS based deployments are a problem. No one bothered to train people on appropriate uses of Kafka before double abstracting it into a framework. But hey, the board was promised a cost savings and globally available product from this effort so at least the executive that promised it all has two more years to figure out how to make good on it. Best of all is we have a new CTO and he has openly questioned why we don’t just use Kubernetes itself instead of the couple of Hashicorp products we’ve settled on. Maybe I’ll get to do this a fourth time once we finish the current migration.

beAbU 3y ago
> we have canceled the product roadmap to focus on year three of the migration This is the most surreal thing I've read on here. You went from a company that delivers some product, to a company that delivers a migration. You sure your company is not the one in the OP? ;)
secondcoming 3y ago
> No one can tell me why our current ECS based deployments are a problem. The problem is it's not Kubernetes. I am in the exact same situation. New manager arrives and wants to move to Kubernetes, just because.
- Moto7451 3y ago
  Correct. It’s not Kubernetes. They just chose that (and similar software) because it’s “what you’re supposed to use.”
threeseed 3y ago
It sounds to me like you're an engineer who is out of the loop. Because suggesting Hashicorp over Kubernetes makes a lot of sense so long as you are ignorant about budgets and costs. Because from experience they are one of the worst vendors around at squeezing money out of their customers. I imagine if you were the CTO you would likely agree with them.
- Moto7451 3y ago
  The problem is not about the vendor at all. It’s not even about Kubernetes. It’s about the problem being solved. I’m not an IC so I get to see all the behind the scenes. We’re just cosplaying a large tech org when this company, like the others I’ve been at, is a sales company with an IT team. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. It’s a good business to be in. We just don’t need a complex runtime with software defined networking to deploy a series of three server blue/green deployments for relatively low traffic use cases. The problem itself has been the same for the past three companies I’ve worked at.

inopinatus 3y ago

adhesive knitting > baroque scaffolding

lostlogin 3y ago

It’s not alluring at all, but it’s eluding to a recurring shitty theme with such ‘upgrades’.

Tommah 3y ago
Ahem, you mean alluding, not eluding.
- techwiz137 3y ago
  Exactly. It was my mistake.
weikju 3y ago
Or alluding to…

starbugs 3y ago

> So the article is satire and the company non-existant, but what is it alluring to exactly. What is it trying to say? Of course these companies exist and there is a core of truth in what the article says. Otherwise, it wouldn't be satire.

flanked-evergl 3y ago

I think it's a bit like a rorschach test, maybe. I would attribute the 11-week time period to a dysfunctional organization, but someone who doesn't like K8S and prefer to run everything themselves may interpret it as implying K8S is overcomplicated. In reality, though, a migration to K8S in most organizations won't take only 11 weeks because most organizations are completely dysfunctional.