3 ms·

Yep. It takes way fewer people to operating a working system than to build a new one. And the nature of capitalism is that you will pare down your numbers until

Yep. It takes way fewer people to operating a working system than to build a new one. And the nature of capitalism is that you will pare down your numbers until you have the absolute minimum staffing you need to keep the lights on. Then when everything explodes, you completely lack the know-how to fix it. Then the CEO yells as the tech executive who responds by demanding hourly updates from the two junior devs who operate the site, and nobody wants to admit that they aren't capable of fixing it, and nobody's gonna OK a really expensive "we're gonna spend a month emergency building a new thing" plan because nobody's okay with because a month is obviously way too much time you need to fix it right now, and then three months go by and here you are.

spacebanana7 1y ago
I get the opposite impression. Stale software organisations with steady operating products seem to use massive headcounts, whereas startups building new products often get by with relatively few people.
- esseph 1y ago
  Startups don't have to run a software stack for decades, hardware refreshes or SKU updates and replatforms, dealing with multiple types of turnover and reogs, knowledge transfer, etc. Plus at least monthly if not daily, even hourly system patching. Planting a garden is one thing. Weeding it is another.
- donnachangstein 1y ago
  > whereas startups building new products often get by with relatively few people 90% of startups fail within 5 years so probably not the best example of how to run things. The few that do "succeed" often carry over mountains of cruft and garbage code into perpetuity (for example Reddit).
chatmasta 1y ago
A friend of a friend told me about an organization that has a steady income from existing products maintained by just enough engineers to keep the lights on, while the other 80% of the organization is building the “new version” that no customer asked for and that nobody is currently paying for. There’s one product that is used by more than 80% of customers that’s maintained by 2 developers and that the CEO isn’t aware even exists.
- jemmyw 1y ago
  Ya I've been there. I even tried pitching to management that a small team of us wanted to move to the legacy product and iteratively improve it because it had customers and revenue and we could make an impact while the new product was under development. They said no. I left about 6 months after. 9 years later the legacy product is still running. I can't find any evidence that they launched a new one.

spacebanana7 1y ago

I get the opposite impression. Stale software organisations with steady operating products seem to use massive headcounts, whereas startups building new products often get by with relatively few people.

esseph 1y ago
Startups don't have to run a software stack for decades, hardware refreshes or SKU updates and replatforms, dealing with multiple types of turnover and reogs, knowledge transfer, etc. Plus at least monthly if not daily, even hourly system patching. Planting a garden is one thing. Weeding it is another.
donnachangstein 1y ago
> whereas startups building new products often get by with relatively few people 90% of startups fail within 5 years so probably not the best example of how to run things. The few that do "succeed" often carry over mountains of cruft and garbage code into perpetuity (for example Reddit).

chatmasta 1y ago

A friend of a friend told me about an organization that has a steady income from existing products maintained by just enough engineers to keep the lights on, while the other 80% of the organization is building the “new version” that no customer asked for and that nobody is currently paying for. There’s one product that is used by more than 80% of customers that’s maintained by 2 developers and that the CEO isn’t aware even exists.

jemmyw 1y ago
Ya I've been there. I even tried pitching to management that a small team of us wanted to move to the legacy product and iteratively improve it because it had customers and revenue and we could make an impact while the new product was under development. They said no. I left about 6 months after. 9 years later the legacy product is still running. I can't find any evidence that they launched a new one.