4 ms·

My team is responsible for the research, evaluation, approval, integration, and on-going support for each and every single platform that is within our stack. We

My team is responsible for the research, evaluation, approval, integration, and on-going support for each and every single platform that is within our stack. We have a lengthy standardized process for evaluation/scoring/approval and one of our mandates is a minimum of 30 days, no payment, and no Sharewaresque limitation in functionality. If we cannot get 30 days, it's a simple 'no,' and we move on to the next. Even at 30 days, it's extremely stressful on the team to get the system up and running, ingest our test case data, and run our tests. This is after going through this process >100 times. There's simply no way to get everything that needs to be done with an evaluation of even basic coverage in less than 30. Full stop. Lack of adequate understanding of the potential challenges an org is going to face during implementation and use is, IMO, the single biggest reason implementations run WAY OVER budget, time, and eventually fail at integration w/the rest of the org. This is entirely ignoring the required change management, which is another beast entirely.

carlosjobim 2y ago
It sounds like you're bragging about a dysfunctional way of working. If what your team is doing is valuable they should get any tools they like without much questions. Just like in any reasonable workplace. Because workers produce more and better when they have better tools. You can also just buy the software to evaluate it. This way you have unlimited time to see if it fits or not. That's what people do in other industries.
- kfarr 2y ago
  Yeah it is a bit odd to say that the #1 requirement is that the software be free for 30 days, that would disqualify a bunch of critical infrastructure.
  - p_l 2y ago
    A lot of multiple thousand dollars per seat software will offer evaluation licenses, for various lengths of time, sometimes way longer than 30 days.
- dijit 2y ago
  Theres a quick fall-off. Sourcegraph is $99/u/m and has major network effects. For a moderately sized org this is quickly an entire developer salary. Snyk is similarly priced, unfortunately “just buy” is a really easy way to: a) pay more than something is woth b) have multiple products doing the same thing. (for example, I have Miro and figjam and Mural in my company because each do something slightly better and teams have chosen the tools that work best). That means we often double pay on licenses for ostensibly similar software.
  - sqs 2y ago
    Sourcegraph CEO here. It’s not $99/user/month anymore. It’s great that a lot of companies were willing to pay that, but we and our customers prefer a lower per-user price and a higher % of devs at the company using it (ideally 100%). We reduced prices for our customers (current and future). You can see the posted pricing at https://sourcegraph.com/pricing https://sourcegraph.com/pricing. For any other dev tools companies, I’d strongly recommend having lower prices so that every dev at your customer can use it (if that’s relevant for your product). If you start seeing customers be really picky with who gets a license, it’s probably priced too high.
    - CamelCaseName 2y ago
      Off-topic, but I see you always responding very quickly whenever Sourcegraph is mentioned. I was entertained a while back when I saw you getting accused for using sockpuppets, but am I correct in thinking that you're probably just using the API to monitor for name mentions? Edit: To be clear, I think this is great and that more companies should do this.
      - jdorfman 2y ago
        Syften & Common Room =)
      - sqs 2y ago
        Haha, yeah, @jdorfman's sibling comment mentions the tools we use. Any mentions on HN, Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, etc., show up in our team chat. The gold standard, of course, is Sid at GitLab ("GitLab CEO here" :).
- dh2022 2y ago
  Well, maybe a way to let workers try out better tools and not explode the budget /complexity of the tech stack is to give devs $500 / year to spend on whatever they want. It could be monitors, a new IDE, etc.... This way individuals can try out a new tool and if they really see itts value they could "sell" it to management.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    Even where there hasn't been a formal policy I usually haven't had a hard time getting anything that costs, say, $50.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    $500 per year is a pathetically low amount for a dev who is expected to make his company hundreds of thousands or millions per year. Plumbers and HVAC specialists have tools worth tens of thousands of dollars.
    - charlie0 2y ago
      We already have equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars. It's between our ears.
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        Your glasses?
    - robocat 2y ago
      Comparing subscriptions to one-off costs makes little sense. > Plumbers and HVAC specialists have tools worth tens of thousands of dollars. And how many of their tools are annual subscriptions? And do their tools have residual value e.g. sell the business as a whole?
      - carlosjobim 2y ago
        Who said it was about subscriptions? But physical tools wear out when used professionally, so they are an ongoing cost. Not to mention all other material that are simply spent when used by people in physical businesses.
ultrasaurus 2y ago
This sounds very much like an "enterprise" sale, with a sales rep who can help with checklists and presumably extend your trial quite a bit.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

carlosjobim 2y ago

It sounds like you're bragging about a dysfunctional way of working. If what your team is doing is valuable they should get any tools they like without much questions. Just like in any reasonable workplace. Because workers produce more and better when they have better tools. You can also just buy the software to evaluate it. This way you have unlimited time to see if it fits or not. That's what people do in other industries.

kfarr 2y ago
Yeah it is a bit odd to say that the #1 requirement is that the software be free for 30 days, that would disqualify a bunch of critical infrastructure.
- p_l 2y ago
  A lot of multiple thousand dollars per seat software will offer evaluation licenses, for various lengths of time, sometimes way longer than 30 days.
dijit 2y ago
Theres a quick fall-off. Sourcegraph is $99/u/m and has major network effects. For a moderately sized org this is quickly an entire developer salary. Snyk is similarly priced, unfortunately “just buy” is a really easy way to: a) pay more than something is woth b) have multiple products doing the same thing. (for example, I have Miro and figjam and Mural in my company because each do something slightly better and teams have chosen the tools that work best). That means we often double pay on licenses for ostensibly similar software.
- sqs 2y ago
  Sourcegraph CEO here. It’s not $99/user/month anymore. It’s great that a lot of companies were willing to pay that, but we and our customers prefer a lower per-user price and a higher % of devs at the company using it (ideally 100%). We reduced prices for our customers (current and future). You can see the posted pricing at https://sourcegraph.com/pricing https://sourcegraph.com/pricing. For any other dev tools companies, I’d strongly recommend having lower prices so that every dev at your customer can use it (if that’s relevant for your product). If you start seeing customers be really picky with who gets a license, it’s probably priced too high.
  - CamelCaseName 2y ago
    Off-topic, but I see you always responding very quickly whenever Sourcegraph is mentioned. I was entertained a while back when I saw you getting accused for using sockpuppets, but am I correct in thinking that you're probably just using the API to monitor for name mentions? Edit: To be clear, I think this is great and that more companies should do this.
    - jdorfman 2y ago
      Syften & Common Room =)
    - sqs 2y ago
      Haha, yeah, @jdorfman's sibling comment mentions the tools we use. Any mentions on HN, Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, etc., show up in our team chat. The gold standard, of course, is Sid at GitLab ("GitLab CEO here" :).
dh2022 2y ago
Well, maybe a way to let workers try out better tools and not explode the budget /complexity of the tech stack is to give devs $500 / year to spend on whatever they want. It could be monitors, a new IDE, etc.... This way individuals can try out a new tool and if they really see itts value they could "sell" it to management.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Even where there hasn't been a formal policy I usually haven't had a hard time getting anything that costs, say, $50.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  $500 per year is a pathetically low amount for a dev who is expected to make his company hundreds of thousands or millions per year. Plumbers and HVAC specialists have tools worth tens of thousands of dollars.
  - charlie0 2y ago
    We already have equipment worth tens of thousands of dollars. It's between our ears.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Your glasses?
  - robocat 2y ago
    Comparing subscriptions to one-off costs makes little sense. > Plumbers and HVAC specialists have tools worth tens of thousands of dollars. And how many of their tools are annual subscriptions? And do their tools have residual value e.g. sell the business as a whole?
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Who said it was about subscriptions? But physical tools wear out when used professionally, so they are an ongoing cost. Not to mention all other material that are simply spent when used by people in physical businesses.

ultrasaurus 2y ago

This sounds very much like an "enterprise" sale, with a sales rep who can help with checklists and presumably extend your trial quite a bit.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]