23 ms·

They could save even more if they shut it down! That's a ridiculous thing to say. We could all save money that way. You've obviously never worked in a for prof

by hnriot 14y ago

They could save even more if they shut it down! That's a ridiculous thing to say. We could all save money that way. You've obviously never worked in a for profit corporation. in such there are policies and practices put in place to prevent just this kind of newbie mistake. You never modify the live database directly. Never ever. Whether it's a bottom line property or not. I didn't say it would negatively impact YC's business. It might make them look incompetent, but these things happen, but people don't approach YC for their website savvy, they go there for the money and the connections. Most of the VC firms i've EIR'd at have much worse IT than hn. Their sites are barely usable. It seems to just go with the territory. Let's not be so defensive, PG can do what he likes with his site, including take it down whenever he feels like saving bandwidth. But in the real world these kinds of things get real people on a fast track to their exit interview.

JohnBooty 14y ago
"You've obviously never worked in a for profit corporation" Wow, really? I don't think that attitude is warranted at all. At any company (for-profit or otherwise) there is a finite amount of time and money -- and surely we can agree that solid development/deployment practices carry an upfront time/money cost, can't we? In an ideal world, all projects would have continuous build processes, automated tests, and management tools extensive enough to render live database surgery unnecessary. Perhaps you've worked at companies so flush with cash that every single line of code, research project or otherwise, has gone through rigorous development/testing/deployment practices. If so, I'm jealous. I've always worked at companies that had to be choosey about how they spend their resources.
st0p 14y ago
I've worked at a lot of for profit business (not banks though, i can understand that in those kind of business requirements are diferrent) and made live database updates in all of them. In 99% of the cases all goes well and in the remaining 1% you need to revert to your backup (always make backups before doing anything!) and have a couple of minutes of downtime. It really depends on what kind of business you're in whether this is acceptable or not.

by hnriot 14y ago

JohnBooty 14y ago

"You've obviously never worked in a for profit corporation" Wow, really? I don't think that attitude is warranted at all. At any company (for-profit or otherwise) there is a finite amount of time and money -- and surely we can agree that solid development/deployment practices carry an upfront time/money cost, can't we? In an ideal world, all projects would have continuous build processes, automated tests, and management tools extensive enough to render live database surgery unnecessary. Perhaps you've worked at companies so flush with cash that every single line of code, research project or otherwise, has gone through rigorous development/testing/deployment practices. If so, I'm jealous. I've always worked at companies that had to be choosey about how they spend their resources.

st0p 14y ago

I've worked at a lot of for profit business (not banks though, i can understand that in those kind of business requirements are diferrent) and made live database updates in all of them. In 99% of the cases all goes well and in the remaining 1% you need to revert to your backup (always make backups before doing anything!) and have a couple of minutes of downtime. It really depends on what kind of business you're in whether this is acceptable or not.