42 ms·

One of the first laws of the universe that a good engineer learns is: Do not fix what is not broken. And no, being old is not broken.

sunnybeetroot 2y ago
I do agree, however I think it’s often easier to upgrade iteratively and deal with smaller issues that arise as opposed to upgrading a huge version diff and struggling to understand and fix all the failing parts.
- elric 2y ago
  I think there's a balance to be struck there. On large databases, upgrade time can be very slow. Is it worth upgrading iteratively at great expense if there are no benefits to be gained (e.g. no bugfixes that affect you, no critical security issues)? Maybe, maybe not.
atoav 2y ago
This is solid advice, however I would caveat that you can't know if it is broken if you are not checking. E.g. if your old as hell database has a known vulernability that can be expoited, unless you can rule out that it can be used in your setup it is broken by all definitions of the word.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  It's not a caveat since checking is a prerequisite to the law that shall not be violated. If you are "fixing" a Schroedinger's Cat, my dude the Supreme Court of the Universe will not be kind.
vbezhenar 2y ago
It leads to a lot of old software which is not going to be upgraded ever. Then the entire project dies and gets rewritten from the scratch, because nobody wants to work with Windows 2003 server running Delphi 7, Java 1.4 and Oracle 9i in 2020 (personal experience). Old software is not necessarily broken, but it is always a tech debt. And you can't live in debt forever, our IT does not work this way.
yxhuvud 2y ago
Being old is not being broken, but being old can make it so that something that is broken cannot be fixed.
WJW 2y ago
The entire field of maintenance engineering would like a word. Over longer periods of time it's vastly cheaper to regularly fix things even before they break, and software is no exception. Amongst other reasons: - Performing regular upgrades is an easy and cheap way to maintain a healthy knowledge base about the system. It's always easier to fix a system that is well understood than a black box which nobody has touched in 20 years. Upgrading regularly also leads to people being more comfortable with the upgrade process and it is likely to become a "regular thing" with checklists and other process improvements that make maintenance safer and more reliable. - Doing preemptive maintenance means YOU get to choose when the system is unavailable and then you can plan accordingly, perhaps by planning it during a period with low usage or even arranging for a redundant system to take up the load. The alternative is leaving it up to chance when a system will fail, and that's frequently at high-load moments when you can least afford it. - As a corollary to the previous point: a team which is in control of its systems can have more predictable output of feature work, since there will be fewer "unexpected" events. Not maintaining your systems is only cheaper in the long run if you don't count the engineering time required to fix things when they break or need to be replaced. Ounce of prevention vs pound of cure and all that.
- LaGrange 2y ago
  > The entire field of maintenance engineering would like a word. Over longer periods of time it's vastly cheaper to regularly fix things even before they break, and software is no exception. I mean I think it's because maintenance is so unglamorous. So when it happens and everything doesn't collapse, nobody remembers and starts asking why we even do it (and then sysadmins and middle management suddenly aren't a thing, and companies and IT become exactly as fragile as anyone with _actual_ understanding of management would expect). Meanwhile when regular maintenance fails in progress, it often ends up in the news with a body count attached. One of my favourite podcasts has a running joke that you should never do maintenance (because so many industrial disasters happen during it). Of course the bias is the point of the joke - and usually the reason things went bad is because either the maintenance was neglected until that point, or the engineering picked Postgresql, I mean, didn't consider the necessity of maintenance.
- caeril 2y ago
LaGrange 2y ago
One of the first laws of universe that an experienced engineer learns is that "do not fix what is not broken" never actually applies, and is only brought up by people invulnerable to consequences. That doesn't mean "upgrade recklessly," but it does mean you should know _why_ you're either upgrading or _NOT_ upgrading. That's your job, much more than the act of upgrading itself. Unpublished vulnerabilities in old software are not a hypothetical. And very old packages are usually broken, just coped with at the expense of significant lost opportunity cost - or because the failure is a combination of rare and impactful that means once it happens everyone is out of job anyway. Seriously, I've yet have to encounter a sysadmin using that old, silly adage at me and not later have to admit I was right. Edit: so no, you don't stay on an ancient version of the database because "it's not broken." You're staying on it because _the upgrade process itself_ is so broken you're terrified of it.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  I generally follow if it’s not broken, fixes need to be carefully planned. I can’t tell you how many times I thought I’d quickly do an upgrade and things would go wrong, like all of my home automation stop working right before bed.
  - LaGrange 2y ago
    I mean, _yeah_, for anything important you should move as carefully as possible. Just, "not upgrading" ain't that.
comprev 2y ago
Preventative maintenance is a thing in both software and hardware world. It's often lower risk to apply frequent smaller changes than wait years for one enormous "bundled" upgrade.
chasil 2y ago
This is alternately known as Chesterton's Fence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

sunnybeetroot 2y ago

I do agree, however I think it’s often easier to upgrade iteratively and deal with smaller issues that arise as opposed to upgrading a huge version diff and struggling to understand and fix all the failing parts.

elric 2y ago
I think there's a balance to be struck there. On large databases, upgrade time can be very slow. Is it worth upgrading iteratively at great expense if there are no benefits to be gained (e.g. no bugfixes that affect you, no critical security issues)? Maybe, maybe not.

atoav 2y ago

This is solid advice, however I would caveat that you can't know if it is broken if you are not checking. E.g. if your old as hell database has a known vulernability that can be expoited, unless you can rule out that it can be used in your setup it is broken by all definitions of the word.

Dalewyn 2y ago
It's not a caveat since checking is a prerequisite to the law that shall not be violated. If you are "fixing" a Schroedinger's Cat, my dude the Supreme Court of the Universe will not be kind.

vbezhenar 2y ago

It leads to a lot of old software which is not going to be upgraded ever. Then the entire project dies and gets rewritten from the scratch, because nobody wants to work with Windows 2003 server running Delphi 7, Java 1.4 and Oracle 9i in 2020 (personal experience). Old software is not necessarily broken, but it is always a tech debt. And you can't live in debt forever, our IT does not work this way.

yxhuvud 2y ago

Being old is not being broken, but being old can make it so that something that is broken cannot be fixed.

WJW 2y ago

The entire field of maintenance engineering would like a word. Over longer periods of time it's vastly cheaper to regularly fix things even before they break, and software is no exception. Amongst other reasons: - Performing regular upgrades is an easy and cheap way to maintain a healthy knowledge base about the system. It's always easier to fix a system that is well understood than a black box which nobody has touched in 20 years. Upgrading regularly also leads to people being more comfortable with the upgrade process and it is likely to become a "regular thing" with checklists and other process improvements that make maintenance safer and more reliable. - Doing preemptive maintenance means YOU get to choose when the system is unavailable and then you can plan accordingly, perhaps by planning it during a period with low usage or even arranging for a redundant system to take up the load. The alternative is leaving it up to chance when a system will fail, and that's frequently at high-load moments when you can least afford it. - As a corollary to the previous point: a team which is in control of its systems can have more predictable output of feature work, since there will be fewer "unexpected" events. Not maintaining your systems is only cheaper in the long run if you don't count the engineering time required to fix things when they break or need to be replaced. Ounce of prevention vs pound of cure and all that.

LaGrange 2y ago
> The entire field of maintenance engineering would like a word. Over longer periods of time it's vastly cheaper to regularly fix things even before they break, and software is no exception. I mean I think it's because maintenance is so unglamorous. So when it happens and everything doesn't collapse, nobody remembers and starts asking why we even do it (and then sysadmins and middle management suddenly aren't a thing, and companies and IT become exactly as fragile as anyone with _actual_ understanding of management would expect). Meanwhile when regular maintenance fails in progress, it often ends up in the news with a body count attached. One of my favourite podcasts has a running joke that you should never do maintenance (because so many industrial disasters happen during it). Of course the bias is the point of the joke - and usually the reason things went bad is because either the maintenance was neglected until that point, or the engineering picked Postgresql, I mean, didn't consider the necessity of maintenance.
caeril 2y ago

LaGrange 2y ago

One of the first laws of universe that an experienced engineer learns is that "do not fix what is not broken" never actually applies, and is only brought up by people invulnerable to consequences. That doesn't mean "upgrade recklessly," but it does mean you should know _why_ you're either upgrading or _NOT_ upgrading. That's your job, much more than the act of upgrading itself. Unpublished vulnerabilities in old software are not a hypothetical. And very old packages are usually broken, just coped with at the expense of significant lost opportunity cost - or because the failure is a combination of rare and impactful that means once it happens everyone is out of job anyway. Seriously, I've yet have to encounter a sysadmin using that old, silly adage at me and not later have to admit I was right. Edit: so no, you don't stay on an ancient version of the database because "it's not broken." You're staying on it because _the upgrade process itself_ is so broken you're terrified of it.

kayodelycaon 2y ago
I generally follow if it’s not broken, fixes need to be carefully planned. I can’t tell you how many times I thought I’d quickly do an upgrade and things would go wrong, like all of my home automation stop working right before bed.
- LaGrange 2y ago
  I mean, _yeah_, for anything important you should move as carefully as possible. Just, "not upgrading" ain't that.

comprev 2y ago

Preventative maintenance is a thing in both software and hardware world. It's often lower risk to apply frequent smaller changes than wait years for one enormous "bundled" upgrade.

chasil 2y ago

This is alternately known as Chesterton's Fence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]