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

> I think a lot of people just accept the performance they get as normal even if they are doing things that take 1000x (or worse) the time and/or space than it could (even without heroic work).

Habit is a very powerful force.

Performance is somewhat abstract, as in "just throw more CPUs at it" / it works for me (on my top of the line PC). But people will happily keep on using unergonomic tools just because they've always done so.

I work for a shop that's mainly Windows (but I'm a Linux guy). I won't even get into how annoying the OS is and how unnecessary, since we're mostly using web apps through Chrome. But pretty much all my colleagues have no issue with using VNC for remote administration of computers.

It's so painful, it hurts to see them do it. And for some reason, they absolutely refuse to use RDP (I'm talking about local connections, over a controlled network). And they don't particularly need to see what the user in front of the computer is seeing, they just need to see that some random app starts or something.

I won't even get into Windows Remote Management and controlling those systems from the comfort of their local terminal with 0 lag.

But for some reason, "we've always done it this way" is stronger than the inconvenience through which they have to suffer every day.



Part of the problem is we use unintentionally vague terms like "performance." What does that mean? Bandwidth? Reliability? Scalability? Something we can fix later right? That's what all executives and—frankly—most engineers hear.

I only ever talk about "latency." Latency is time—you can't get latency back once you've spent it.


It's the downside to choosing boring tech. It costs believable dollars to migrate and unbelievable dollars to keep course. There is a happy medium, I believe, that is better than "pissing away the competitive edge."




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

Search: