4 ms·

[flagged]

dang 1y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- FrankWilhoit 1y ago
  I appreciate the feedback. I was not rebuking the HN community member who posted, but the author of the article he linked to. Refuting that original article would require a couple of thousand words. The missing perspective was that of the customer, which is essentially opposite from that of the vendor.
  - metadat 1y ago
    And yet the customers keep buying from the big shops. Perplexing in some ways, and also a cold hard fact of reality. Did you have something more to add? I am definitely curious to understand more of your perspective. Cheers.
    - FrankWilhoit 1y ago
      The budget is use-or-lose. The contracts with the major suppliers condition large "discounts" on spend increasing every year. The exact targets of the spend are either specified by the auditors or not specified at all. I have been in meetings where between ~50-100 managers and architects were told, we have to spend 15% more with ___ next year, here is their list of software SKUs, what is your Christmas list?
_--__--__ 1y ago
A substantial portion of the linked article is about the specific priorities of enterprise software customers.
- FrankWilhoit 1y ago
  Speaking as one such customer, it is all false. Again, a detailed refutation would run to such length as to abuse the hospitality of this forum.
  - rwallace 1y ago
    I disagree with your second sentence above. I think it is shallow dismissals that are inappropriate here. Conversely, I have upvoted a number of long explanations of interesting topics. If you don't have time to write a detailed refutation, that's entirely understandable! But if you do, I would love to read it. I did appreciate your paragraph length comment on the matter elsewhere in this thread.
    - FrankWilhoit 1y ago
      My original comment was one of those "if you know, you know" things. Topics age out very quickly on this site. I have two lengths: aphorism or six pages. The graf that you so kindly praise raises more questions than it answers and I am not comfortable with that. I am also not comfortable with spoon-feeding my own views, which are evidently idiosyncratic. At medium length, that is the effect. To marshal citations and evidence in order to re-attain objectivity really does explode the level of effort. It is worthwhile, but this is a quick-hit forum, things roll off the front page usually in about an hour or two. The flip side of that is that there will be other opportunities.
      - rwallace 1y ago
        Fair enough! If you ever have the time and inclination to write it up as a blog post or such, I would love to read it.

[flagged]

dang 1y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

FrankWilhoit 1y ago
I appreciate the feedback. I was not rebuking the HN community member who posted, but the author of the article he linked to. Refuting that original article would require a couple of thousand words. The missing perspective was that of the customer, which is essentially opposite from that of the vendor.
- metadat 1y ago
  And yet the customers keep buying from the big shops. Perplexing in some ways, and also a cold hard fact of reality. Did you have something more to add? I am definitely curious to understand more of your perspective. Cheers.
  - FrankWilhoit 1y ago
    The budget is use-or-lose. The contracts with the major suppliers condition large "discounts" on spend increasing every year. The exact targets of the spend are either specified by the auditors or not specified at all. I have been in meetings where between ~50-100 managers and architects were told, we have to spend 15% more with ___ next year, here is their list of software SKUs, what is your Christmas list?

_--__--__ 1y ago

A substantial portion of the linked article is about the specific priorities of enterprise software customers.

FrankWilhoit 1y ago
Speaking as one such customer, it is all false. Again, a detailed refutation would run to such length as to abuse the hospitality of this forum.
- rwallace 1y ago
  I disagree with your second sentence above. I think it is shallow dismissals that are inappropriate here. Conversely, I have upvoted a number of long explanations of interesting topics. If you don't have time to write a detailed refutation, that's entirely understandable! But if you do, I would love to read it. I did appreciate your paragraph length comment on the matter elsewhere in this thread.
  - FrankWilhoit 1y ago
    My original comment was one of those "if you know, you know" things. Topics age out very quickly on this site. I have two lengths: aphorism or six pages. The graf that you so kindly praise raises more questions than it answers and I am not comfortable with that. I am also not comfortable with spoon-feeding my own views, which are evidently idiosyncratic. At medium length, that is the effect. To marshal citations and evidence in order to re-attain objectivity really does explode the level of effort. It is worthwhile, but this is a quick-hit forum, things roll off the front page usually in about an hour or two. The flip side of that is that there will be other opportunities.
    - rwallace 1y ago
      Fair enough! If you ever have the time and inclination to write it up as a blog post or such, I would love to read it.