7 ms·

I think it's impressive how far they've come the last few years. Props to the gov.uk team if any of them lurk here, they even came and commented when the initia

I think it's impressive how far they've come the last few years. Props to the gov.uk team if any of them lurk here, they even came and commented when the initial designs were posted here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3811052 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3811052 Yes, the probably eventually should, but given how we've gone from terrible websites by contractors to decent ones in a short time, I'm not going to start jumping up and down about it yet. Although if they could get round to redesigning the 'gateway' crap sooner rather than later it'd be much appreciated. I have already been given 25 different gateway IDs.

csmithuk 13y ago
I am and I'm not impressed. Whilst the outcome is positive, the technology churn isn't. In fact, it's a right mess. They've ended up with a huge stack that doesn't need to be there. They're there to provide content efficiently, not redesign the infrastructure. They're using tech because it's cool and fun rather than suitable for the task and cost effective. I know people are going to compare them to EDS and say "look how far we've come" etc but they are still spending public money and are not beyond scrutiny from us tax payers. They're not a startup either. The ground they're standing on is different to what they think they're standing on. Edit: downvoters, please at least have the honour to explain yourselves.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Having a central body which sets government digital policy on how to provide information across departments is great. That they're doing a fantastic job of providing content to users efficiently, using appropriate technology and without favouring commercial solutions, is incredible. Compare the clusterfuck that is http://www.cyberstreetwise.com http://www.cyberstreetwise.com. Contracted-out websites cannot match the quality and cost effectiveness. I downvoted you because it's really very difficult to understand what you are actually complaining about: you are trolling.
  - csmithuk 13y ago
    I'm not trolling. I've watched them build their own stack, throw it away, build it again, throw it away. That's waste.
    - vdaniuk 13y ago
      That is experimentation. Experimentation is a necessity and is a cornerstone of a good design. Don't you agree?
      - csmithuk 13y ago
        Yes and no. Some notes: * Experimentation doesn't make it into production twice unless you're doing something wrong. * There are proven solutions off the shelf both open source and commercial. * They should be value driven rather than innovation driven. We aren't paying them to be a research agency. * There is an ongoing maintenance cost and in-house only knowledge when you do an NIH job of something. That is not efficient.
    - johneth 13y ago
      It would be even more wasteful to build a stack, then even if it didn't work / new features needed to be added / old cruft needed to be removed / new devices and services need to be supported, just keep using and developing that stack. It's called agile development, and it lets them respond quickly and efficiently to changes in requirements / mission. See also: Facebook, Twitter, most other tech companies.
      - csmithuk 13y ago
        That's fine but the first iterations were because they fucked the requirements up. Regardless of Agile/not, due diligence when selecting products or deciding to write them is required.
        johneth 13y ago
        Requirements, especially in government, will change quite quickly whatever you do, so I'd argue that fast agile development is more beneficial and cost-effective than slower development cycles.
- aebe0e37a30b 13y ago
  The downvotes are no surprise. It's illegal so say anything negative about them, didn't you know? Personally, I agree with you. I've had some experience of them, and was shocked by the general level of inexperience (they build web sites, with virtually no enterprise experience), the unwavering and dogmatic commitment to agile and open source (don't misunderstand me - both are good things but there are times where it just! doesn't! make! sense!), and the lack of security understanding. UK government security in general has always been compliance-oriented. Want to run a system at a particular sensitivity level? Implement this checklist of controls. Security should be risk-based, and that doesn't happen. Not even at gov.uk. Some of their exemplar projects have been running since 2011 and still aren't complete. But they're being heralded as poster-children of agile. So spin isn't limited to Whitehall... The team is talented, without a doubt. It would be nice to see it mature.
- pgs_socks 13y ago
  The problem is they were all Rails Brogrammers, then they wanted to be Scala Brogrammers, and they were not good at either. Waste of tax pounds!
  - csmithuk 13y ago
    That's what the devil on my shoulder said to me but they're just really too inexperienced to make a call on half of the stuff they do. Ultimately this is probably because experienced people got better offers elsewhere.
- simonbarker87 13y ago
  As a UK tax payer who has to regularly interact with government websites looking for information I am very pleased with the ROI of this project. It's faster, smoother, better organised and less daunting to try to find stuff. It's not perfect but it's a truck load better than the previous versions and, if I understand the reporting, cheaper than outsourcing it via a tender process that would have landed up being built and then abandoned anyway.

csmithuk 13y ago

I am and I'm not impressed. Whilst the outcome is positive, the technology churn isn't. In fact, it's a right mess. They've ended up with a huge stack that doesn't need to be there. They're there to provide content efficiently, not redesign the infrastructure. They're using tech because it's cool and fun rather than suitable for the task and cost effective. I know people are going to compare them to EDS and say "look how far we've come" etc but they are still spending public money and are not beyond scrutiny from us tax payers. They're not a startup either. The ground they're standing on is different to what they think they're standing on. Edit: downvoters, please at least have the honour to explain yourselves.

ronaldx 13y ago
Having a central body which sets government digital policy on how to provide information across departments is great. That they're doing a fantastic job of providing content to users efficiently, using appropriate technology and without favouring commercial solutions, is incredible. Compare the clusterfuck that is http://www.cyberstreetwise.com http://www.cyberstreetwise.com. Contracted-out websites cannot match the quality and cost effectiveness. I downvoted you because it's really very difficult to understand what you are actually complaining about: you are trolling.
- csmithuk 13y ago
  I'm not trolling. I've watched them build their own stack, throw it away, build it again, throw it away. That's waste.
  - vdaniuk 13y ago
    That is experimentation. Experimentation is a necessity and is a cornerstone of a good design. Don't you agree?
    - csmithuk 13y ago
      Yes and no. Some notes: * Experimentation doesn't make it into production twice unless you're doing something wrong. * There are proven solutions off the shelf both open source and commercial. * They should be value driven rather than innovation driven. We aren't paying them to be a research agency. * There is an ongoing maintenance cost and in-house only knowledge when you do an NIH job of something. That is not efficient.
  - johneth 13y ago
    It would be even more wasteful to build a stack, then even if it didn't work / new features needed to be added / old cruft needed to be removed / new devices and services need to be supported, just keep using and developing that stack. It's called agile development, and it lets them respond quickly and efficiently to changes in requirements / mission. See also: Facebook, Twitter, most other tech companies.
    - csmithuk 13y ago
      That's fine but the first iterations were because they fucked the requirements up. Regardless of Agile/not, due diligence when selecting products or deciding to write them is required.
      - johneth 13y ago
        Requirements, especially in government, will change quite quickly whatever you do, so I'd argue that fast agile development is more beneficial and cost-effective than slower development cycles.
aebe0e37a30b 13y ago
The downvotes are no surprise. It's illegal so say anything negative about them, didn't you know? Personally, I agree with you. I've had some experience of them, and was shocked by the general level of inexperience (they build web sites, with virtually no enterprise experience), the unwavering and dogmatic commitment to agile and open source (don't misunderstand me - both are good things but there are times where it just! doesn't! make! sense!), and the lack of security understanding. UK government security in general has always been compliance-oriented. Want to run a system at a particular sensitivity level? Implement this checklist of controls. Security should be risk-based, and that doesn't happen. Not even at gov.uk. Some of their exemplar projects have been running since 2011 and still aren't complete. But they're being heralded as poster-children of agile. So spin isn't limited to Whitehall... The team is talented, without a doubt. It would be nice to see it mature.
pgs_socks 13y ago
The problem is they were all Rails Brogrammers, then they wanted to be Scala Brogrammers, and they were not good at either. Waste of tax pounds!
- csmithuk 13y ago
  That's what the devil on my shoulder said to me but they're just really too inexperienced to make a call on half of the stuff they do. Ultimately this is probably because experienced people got better offers elsewhere.
simonbarker87 13y ago
As a UK tax payer who has to regularly interact with government websites looking for information I am very pleased with the ROI of this project. It's faster, smoother, better organised and less daunting to try to find stuff. It's not perfect but it's a truck load better than the previous versions and, if I understand the reporting, cheaper than outsourcing it via a tender process that would have landed up being built and then abandoned anyway.