Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Wait, are you saying that an org needs expertise to QC all of the the hardware they procure? How expensive is that? How easy it is to hire that type of QC?

Do you see how these costs all start to add up?



Well, are you saying that an org needs expertise to inspect faulty cars, like, by calling a mechanic?

Is that like too much these days for companies that owb fleets of cars? is opening a server harder than checking whars wrong with a car? like a cable comes loose and that's gane over?


If I procure a fleet of cars I expect none of them to be faulty...how about you?


>I expect none of them to be faulty

So you don't even test the car's, you just expect that the tire pressure is correct, tank is full?

Expect that something "just" works is exactly why pilots have checklist's.

Expectations are the main point for disappointments, you would never do that with software right?


The point, which you seem so dedicated to avoiding, is that "in the cloud" these steps are not my problem. Inspecting a literal shipload of computers for subtle defects is a pain in the ass. Amazon does it for me. When I get on an airplane I do not personally have to run the checklists. The airline does it for me.


>The point, which you seem so dedicated to avoiding

Not true the point was you pay for it (cloud), or you do it yourself (but then do it right, and not like a amateur who build's his first "gaming-pc").

And if you do it yourself you can still be very much competitive vs cloud.


> (but then do it right, and not like a amateur who build's his first "gaming-pc").

Again, still avoiding the point, but oddly enough proving the point. You assume everyone isn't an amateur and knows how to build and maintain server hardware. Furthermore, because the market doesn't have enough talent to support all of the companies that exist, consolidating this to a few vendors who do have the expertise is what makes sense (economies of scale) and is what the market already decided.


>Again, still avoiding the point, but oddly enough proving the point.

Please read, that was my comment:

>>Not true the point was you pay for it (cloud), or you do it yourself

>You assume everyone isn't an amateur and knows how to build and maintain server hardware.

Yes that i assume, correct. Otherwise i would not call it "maintaining", is a amateur maintaining your car? Your software? If you have just amateur's handling your hardware it's probably better to pay a cloud-provider or pay a integrator todo that.


> you would never do that with software right?

Hilarious you used this as an analogy since software development shops are notorious for cutting corners when it comes to QA.


And that's why you have to test the software before production right? ...Hilarious indeed.


> you would never do that with software right?

You facetiously implied that every company fully tests software before it gets to production. Oh boy, do I have news for you...

Note the word "fully" as the variations of what gets tested is so broad, I don't even know where to start to explain this to you.


I never wrote "fully", but you test your software (i hope). Your just try to justify bad work-ethic.

>Oh boy, do I have news for you...

Nah it's ok, just happy that i have colleges with a much better mindset and risk-management understanding.

And i stop here, since you try to change what i really wrote.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: