3 ms·

that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would

by exe34 2y ago

that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would add value to the business, then you have a business case to buy a new license. 95% of software update haven't really added any value since the early 00s.

ghaff 2y ago
I'm not sure I want to work at a company that nickels and dimes purchases to the degree that I'm running unsupported 20 year old software because someone in procurement doesn't think I need an upgrade unless I write up a business case for it. I assume they're equally cheap in many other ways.
- exe34 2y ago
  and that's why we ended up with agile and alpha crapware released every week, breaking functionality that used to work and moving everything useful around until you can't find it.
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  He didn't say "unsupported." He said no new features. I assume he meant "still fixing bugs."
  - ghaff 2y ago
    So, in other words, you need to upgrade--or have a subscription. In fact, extended support agreements for some enterprise products are a premium offering that don't require moving up to the next version given the effort associated with backporting bug fixes for a fairly small base.
    - AlbertCory 2y ago
      I'm not sure how that's implied, but: paying a subscription for them to fix bugs and keep up with all the churn under them seems reasonable to me.
      - ghaff 2y ago
        And enterprise companies often do that. But that's different from pay once and you're done forever which was the original comment.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        I went quite a ways up the parent chain without seeing anyone seriously proposing that. All executables become unusable eventually (except maybe for IBM mainframes), so "pay once and you're done forever" is inherently impossible. Unless you keep running every part of the hardware / software stack, which works only until some piece of hardware wears out.
        ghaff 2y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41208053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41208053 exe34 15 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–] > $495 per application. it was a lifetime licence though. you can probably still run it today. Also: that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would add value to the business, then you have a business case to buy a new license. 95% of software update haven't really added any value since the early 00s. ----- Maybe I misinterpreted but the implication is I could run something from the early 00s without changes which--while true in some cases--I wouldn't do in general.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        > Maybe I misinterpreted but the implication is I could run something from the early 00s without changes Yes, you did. If he meant that, he wasn't thinking. Some piece of your hardware won't work with the old software, unless it's also old. You get a new printer and there are no drivers for the old OS. The old software won't work with the new network. You want some new app and it doesn't work with the old software. Etc. Etc. We ran into this in Google Patent Litigation all the time. You have to have old everything to run old software, whether your license is still good or not. But I think we agree that paying for maintenance only, and no new features, is fair. Of course, most vendors don't want to do that; they want to shove new "features" down your throat.

by exe34 2y ago

ghaff 2y ago

I'm not sure I want to work at a company that nickels and dimes purchases to the degree that I'm running unsupported 20 year old software because someone in procurement doesn't think I need an upgrade unless I write up a business case for it. I assume they're equally cheap in many other ways.

exe34 2y ago
and that's why we ended up with agile and alpha crapware released every week, breaking functionality that used to work and moving everything useful around until you can't find it.
AlbertCory 2y ago
He didn't say "unsupported." He said no new features. I assume he meant "still fixing bugs."
- ghaff 2y ago
  So, in other words, you need to upgrade--or have a subscription. In fact, extended support agreements for some enterprise products are a premium offering that don't require moving up to the next version given the effort associated with backporting bug fixes for a fairly small base.
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    I'm not sure how that's implied, but: paying a subscription for them to fix bugs and keep up with all the churn under them seems reasonable to me.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      And enterprise companies often do that. But that's different from pay once and you're done forever which was the original comment.
      - AlbertCory 2y ago
        I went quite a ways up the parent chain without seeing anyone seriously proposing that. All executables become unusable eventually (except maybe for IBM mainframes), so "pay once and you're done forever" is inherently impossible. Unless you keep running every part of the hardware / software stack, which works only until some piece of hardware wears out.
        ghaff 2y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41208053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41208053 exe34 15 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–] > $495 per application. it was a lifetime licence though. you can probably still run it today. Also: that's where we disagree: you don't usually need to stay current. as long as it does the job, it's current enough. if there's new features available that would add value to the business, then you have a business case to buy a new license. 95% of software update haven't really added any value since the early 00s. ----- Maybe I misinterpreted but the implication is I could run something from the early 00s without changes which--while true in some cases--I wouldn't do in general.
        AlbertCory 2y ago
        > Maybe I misinterpreted but the implication is I could run something from the early 00s without changes Yes, you did. If he meant that, he wasn't thinking. Some piece of your hardware won't work with the old software, unless it's also old. You get a new printer and there are no drivers for the old OS. The old software won't work with the new network. You want some new app and it doesn't work with the old software. Etc. Etc. We ran into this in Google Patent Litigation all the time. You have to have old everything to run old software, whether your license is still good or not. But I think we agree that paying for maintenance only, and no new features, is fair. Of course, most vendors don't want to do that; they want to shove new "features" down your throat.