3 ms·
I think the article's author is missing a key point - there are equally valid reasons for taking 6 weeks. Say, it is company policy and Feedjit is not high-prof
by hazzen 17y ago
I think the article's author is missing a key point - there are equally valid reasons for taking 6 weeks. Say, it is company policy and Feedjit is not high-profile enough to warrant going against a policy that errs on the side of caution.
Or it could be the case that, yes, it does take 6 weeks to update the database without doing some kind of emergency, invasive fix. But you know what? If you wanted instantaneous fixes for "obvious" mistakes, you are either going to need a damn good definition of "obvious" and be prepared to still handle complaints when it doesn't work properly, or you are going to need to have some person dedicated to this issue.
- blueben 17y agoYou haven't listed valid reasons, but rather arbitrary reasons. That's fine, but let's paint them for what they really are. I think it may be you who missed the key point. Large swaths of the web are real time now. Content, metadata, relevancy, and reputation change in real time. If McAfee wants to play in the same sandbox as all the real time kids, it has to become a real time kid itself. If they don't, then they instantly become useless and irrelevant in a real time world.