4 ms·

It's comments such as this that bubble up to the top of the comment chain that often makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise

It's comments such as this that bubble up to the top of the comment chain that often makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise environments with rigid infrastructure policies. In my more cynical moods I wonder what percentage of users have non-novelty code in production at all.

Mikeb85 13y ago
Fair enough. If you need to support outdated browsers because of someone else's technology choices, that's a differentiating feature for you and your business, and I respect that (and I hope you're charging a decent amount as compensation for the fact you're supporting their older technology). But if you're interested in the advance of technology, especially when it's pushing the boundaries, a little bit (or a lot) of idealism is a good thing. Plenty of people make a (from what I hear) very lucrative living programming in COBOL, and I respect them for it. Lots of people still program in Fortran, which is awesome. But that doesn't mean we should be limited to COBOL and Fortran because someone else is...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
ux-app 13y ago
> "makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise environments with rigid infrastructure policies" I haven't, so I'd appreciate some perspective on this. If an org does not allow other browsers besides IE, what are the chances of, for example, having a QT exe that simply wraps a webkit webview installed? I assume all orgs would have some procedure for requesting and then deploying third party software. Is this route an easier sell than simply saying "Please use Chrome or Firefox"? Thanks
- sgift 13y ago
  There is usually a process to introduce new software into the environment. This process can, depending on the rigidity of the environment, take from a few month to years and involves all kinds of hand-offs by various departments. A top of the head list of things that are considered: - Security - Retraining - Support - Deployment (can we roll this out centrally?) - (various things I've forgotten at the moment) This assumes you have the political clout to initiate such a change. Quite often it is part of the requirements which are defined before there is a project ("We have foo, your software has to run on it") and you cannot influence that. And if one or more of the mentioned parties is actively hostile to you (sometimes only one person who doesn't like you for whatever reason is enough) this can take much, much longer. Or doesn't happen at all.

Mikeb85 13y ago

Fair enough. If you need to support outdated browsers because of someone else's technology choices, that's a differentiating feature for you and your business, and I respect that (and I hope you're charging a decent amount as compensation for the fact you're supporting their older technology). But if you're interested in the advance of technology, especially when it's pushing the boundaries, a little bit (or a lot) of idealism is a good thing. Plenty of people make a (from what I hear) very lucrative living programming in COBOL, and I respect them for it. Lots of people still program in Fortran, which is awesome. But that doesn't mean we should be limited to COBOL and Fortran because someone else is...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

ux-app 13y ago

> "makes me wonder if only a minority of HN users have deployed to enterprise environments with rigid infrastructure policies" I haven't, so I'd appreciate some perspective on this. If an org does not allow other browsers besides IE, what are the chances of, for example, having a QT exe that simply wraps a webkit webview installed? I assume all orgs would have some procedure for requesting and then deploying third party software. Is this route an easier sell than simply saying "Please use Chrome or Firefox"? Thanks

sgift 13y ago
There is usually a process to introduce new software into the environment. This process can, depending on the rigidity of the environment, take from a few month to years and involves all kinds of hand-offs by various departments. A top of the head list of things that are considered: - Security - Retraining - Support - Deployment (can we roll this out centrally?) - (various things I've forgotten at the moment) This assumes you have the political clout to initiate such a change. Quite often it is part of the requirements which are defined before there is a project ("We have foo, your software has to run on it") and you cannot influence that. And if one or more of the mentioned parties is actively hostile to you (sometimes only one person who doesn't like you for whatever reason is enough) this can take much, much longer. Or doesn't happen at all.