3 ms·
This is really about closed source, proprietary infrastructure technology (not all kinds of software in general ), offered by startups, not established companie
by markpapadakis 12y ago
This is really about closed source, proprietary infrastructure technology (not all kinds of software in general ), offered by startups, not established companies.
That is to say, people use Oracle, SQL server, Teradata, etc and they are not worried they will go out of business or be sold or otherwise that they will be left in the dark by a sudden shift in business practices and product availability.
The problem is almost entirely with startups, which are an easy target for bigger companies interested in their technology and team skills set. This is even more so an issue because the majority of startups are VC funded and are under pressure to sell or comply with VCs interests.
So in practice you have three ‘safe’ ways to build your infrastructure, which are not mutually exclusive. Choose OSS software, buy from companies such as Oracle, IBM, HANA, etc, and build it yourself. Depending on the expertise of your team and funds available for purchases, as well as qualifies of the available solutions, OSS is probably the safest way, followed by purchased from large corps. Rolling your own infrastructure is expensive, time consuming, requires committing your developers to building infrastructure instead of well, building a product, and may not work in the end at all.
Even the companies that can afford to do it everything in house (Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, etc) choose OSS for the majority of their needs and build on top of that. Google is Google. However, if that infrastructure is your selling point and what differentiates you from the rest, and/or you have very specific needs and makes more sense to do it this way, doing it yourself can be a great alternative.
We rarely use OSS here, and we don’t use any proprietary infrastructure technology. We have built everything ourselves, and it has worked out great so far, but we have put a lot more effort and resources into that, whereas we could have instead invested on the Product. If we had to make a choice again, in retrospect, we ‘d most likely have gone the OSS way.
It’s all about tradeoffs.
- lwf 12y ago> We have built everything ourselves, and it has worked out great so far, but we have put a lot more effort and resources into that, whereas we could have instead invested on the Product. So, you don't use a libc, or a web framework, or any library that implements common logic that other programmers have spent ages refining? If yes, erk, I don't want to be anywhere near that codebase. If not, I'm reminded of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
- markpapadakis 12y agoObviously, I thought I didn't need to mention that, by everything ourselves I meant our core infrastructure. We didn't write an OS, a compiler tools chain, an editor, a standard library etc. Though we did write our own javascript syntax/semantics based language/compiler/runtime for server side needs. Like I said, if we were to start over, we d use OSS, but, all things considered, that decision didn't hurt us and gave us leverage, knowhow, flexibiliry and that helped is be where we are now.
- Decade 12y agoEstablished companies are no guarantee. If you rely on Visual Basic or FoxPro, then good luck to you. Oregon hardly had a good experience with Oracle. Much of IBM is doomed. FOSS or proprietary to yourself are the only valid options.