3 ms·

OK sure, I get that Slack wants to make money and doesn't want too many 'free' users. The restrictions themselves are acceptable to me. However, their platform

by ksk 11y ago

OK sure, I get that Slack wants to make money and doesn't want too many 'free' users. The restrictions themselves are acceptable to me. However, their platform seems super brittle and janky if it can't handle the users in the first place. Seriously? 5000 users, 10,000 messages is a "Use Case" now? Sending out emails without fucking up needs "engineering"? Um. OK. Personally, I would be embarrassed if I put my name on a product that couldn't handle such an extremely light load for a platform that basically transmits text.

fleitz 11y ago
Have you ever thought that they put those limits in there precisely so that situations totally inappropriate for slack don't occur? I love how programmers are always "embarrassed" about the limitations of billion dollar companies, have you ever though that these limitations might be vital to their success?
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  It's difficult to argue that the limit is essential to their success if only a single user has ever hit it, and that only recently. Of course, we don't know that's the case. There's nothing wrong with limits. Every piece of software has them, and even learning what they are is a major step. Known or explicit limits should be documented, however. It seems that in this case they were not. That's an error on Slack's part.
- ksk 11y ago
  >I love how programmers are always "embarrassed" about the limitations of billion dollar companies, In my mind I picture a station wagon outracing a Ferrari. That would be cause for embarrassment. Your quotes seem to serve no purpose as far as I can tell. >have you ever though that these limitations might be vital to their success? You have much lower expectations than me. I don't see Slack doing something that is in any shape or form particularly challenging from an engineering standpoint.
coldtea 11y ago
>Seriously? 5000 users, 10,000 messages is a "Use Case" now? Slack has millions of users and billions of messages -- working alright. 5000 users were seeing slowdonws for a SINGLE team -- not across Slack. And 10.000 is a limit put by Slack intentionally in place as a freemium boundary. All systems have breaking points, especially if they weren't designed for some specific use. You might as well ask "Twitter can't handle more than 140 characters now, seriously?". >Personally, I would be embarrassed if I put my name on a product that couldn't handle such an extremely light load for a platform that basically transmits text. Your answer doesn't show any understanding of network services at all, including as some guy already pointed out, the "basically transmits text" part, as if that is something trivial at scale...
- ksk 11y ago
  I said that I would be embarrassed. Your opinion does not change that. You obviously seem to have lower expectations than me.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    The only embarassing thing is the lack of understanding of fundamentals shown in your critique -- which you conflate for "higher standards".
    - ksk 11y ago
      Your opinion on my understanding is not important to me. Sorry.

by ksk 11y ago

fleitz 11y ago

Have you ever thought that they put those limits in there precisely so that situations totally inappropriate for slack don't occur? I love how programmers are always "embarrassed" about the limitations of billion dollar companies, have you ever though that these limitations might be vital to their success?

fredkbloggs 11y ago
It's difficult to argue that the limit is essential to their success if only a single user has ever hit it, and that only recently. Of course, we don't know that's the case. There's nothing wrong with limits. Every piece of software has them, and even learning what they are is a major step. Known or explicit limits should be documented, however. It seems that in this case they were not. That's an error on Slack's part.
ksk 11y ago
>I love how programmers are always "embarrassed" about the limitations of billion dollar companies, In my mind I picture a station wagon outracing a Ferrari. That would be cause for embarrassment. Your quotes seem to serve no purpose as far as I can tell. >have you ever though that these limitations might be vital to their success? You have much lower expectations than me. I don't see Slack doing something that is in any shape or form particularly challenging from an engineering standpoint.

coldtea 11y ago

>Seriously? 5000 users, 10,000 messages is a "Use Case" now? Slack has millions of users and billions of messages -- working alright. 5000 users were seeing slowdonws for a SINGLE team -- not across Slack. And 10.000 is a limit put by Slack intentionally in place as a freemium boundary. All systems have breaking points, especially if they weren't designed for some specific use. You might as well ask "Twitter can't handle more than 140 characters now, seriously?". >Personally, I would be embarrassed if I put my name on a product that couldn't handle such an extremely light load for a platform that basically transmits text. Your answer doesn't show any understanding of network services at all, including as some guy already pointed out, the "basically transmits text" part, as if that is something trivial at scale...

ksk 11y ago
I said that I would be embarrassed. Your opinion does not change that. You obviously seem to have lower expectations than me.
- coldtea 11y ago
  The only embarassing thing is the lack of understanding of fundamentals shown in your critique -- which you conflate for "higher standards".
  - ksk 11y ago
    Your opinion on my understanding is not important to me. Sorry.