3 ms·

Because it's more work to do. Instead of setting that up, you could be working on your product. The company I work for does the same - code is all hosted locall

Because it's more work to do. Instead of setting that up, you could be working on your product. The company I work for does the same - code is all hosted locally, emails were (until recently) hosted locally, document sharing too. It was cheap but every so often there'd be a problem and it'd go down for 15-30 minutes, which would cost a few £1000 in lost productivity.

easytiger 14y ago
If you are of a significant size you will want to have a release or build engineer anyway who will normall be the person who takes ownership of these things. If not then it will be your office unix guy. I'm also not a fan of quantifying productivity lost in ££. When someone has a bowl movement do you chart that against company productivity?
- kaolinite 14y ago
  > If you are of a significant size you will want to have a release or build engineer anyway who will normall be the person who takes ownership of these things. If not then it will be your office unix guy. We have a sysadmin who looks after the servers. However, bad things can happen. If he was able to spend all his time working on these problems, they wouldn't occur, but he has other responsibilities too. Should we hire someone else? No! It's cheaper and more reliable to outsource these responsibilities to a team working 100% of the time on it. > I'm also not a fan of quantifying productivity lost in ££. When someone has a bowl movement do you chart that against company productivity? I don't understand your point. There's a big difference between going to get coffee, go to the toilet, etc - which is normal, expected and accounted for - and having large parts of the company unable to work because particular services are down.
  - easytiger 14y ago
    > Should we hire someone else? No! It's cheaper and more reliable to outsource these responsibilities to a team working 100% of the time on it. Well if he did a good job it would be adequately mitigated. This isn't 1997. It is trivial and cheap to set up reliable redundant systems. Outages happen. But not very often if you have done your job half right. Hopefully so rarely that you decay to near zero. > and having large parts of the company unable to work because particular services are down. If it was real time critical yes. But tis a distributed VC we are talking about. Just wait 15 minutes to push and spin your build to the customer. It isnt the end of the world.
    - gtaylor 14y ago
      I think you're missing the point: We could spend extra time doing any number of things ourselves. When it comes down to it, shipping, being productive, and being reasonably efficient are much more important than "just doing it yourself". Especially if you are a tiny-small company, you should not be doing it yourself. You should be battling for success and survival. Not doing it yourself may mean going with BitBucket for some or all of your private repos, in this case.

easytiger 14y ago

If you are of a significant size you will want to have a release or build engineer anyway who will normall be the person who takes ownership of these things. If not then it will be your office unix guy. I'm also not a fan of quantifying productivity lost in ££. When someone has a bowl movement do you chart that against company productivity?

kaolinite 14y ago
> If you are of a significant size you will want to have a release or build engineer anyway who will normall be the person who takes ownership of these things. If not then it will be your office unix guy. We have a sysadmin who looks after the servers. However, bad things can happen. If he was able to spend all his time working on these problems, they wouldn't occur, but he has other responsibilities too. Should we hire someone else? No! It's cheaper and more reliable to outsource these responsibilities to a team working 100% of the time on it. > I'm also not a fan of quantifying productivity lost in ££. When someone has a bowl movement do you chart that against company productivity? I don't understand your point. There's a big difference between going to get coffee, go to the toilet, etc - which is normal, expected and accounted for - and having large parts of the company unable to work because particular services are down.
- easytiger 14y ago
  > Should we hire someone else? No! It's cheaper and more reliable to outsource these responsibilities to a team working 100% of the time on it. Well if he did a good job it would be adequately mitigated. This isn't 1997. It is trivial and cheap to set up reliable redundant systems. Outages happen. But not very often if you have done your job half right. Hopefully so rarely that you decay to near zero. > and having large parts of the company unable to work because particular services are down. If it was real time critical yes. But tis a distributed VC we are talking about. Just wait 15 minutes to push and spin your build to the customer. It isnt the end of the world.
  - gtaylor 14y ago
    I think you're missing the point: We could spend extra time doing any number of things ourselves. When it comes down to it, shipping, being productive, and being reasonably efficient are much more important than "just doing it yourself". Especially if you are a tiny-small company, you should not be doing it yourself. You should be battling for success and survival. Not doing it yourself may mean going with BitBucket for some or all of your private repos, in this case.