I was never impressed with Nouveau, mostly because I pretty quickly ran into this system-crashing bug that I've had open for six years. It's "high critical" importance, plenty of reproductions, log submissions, etc... no developer ever looked at it. Nouveau was unusable. I gave it another try recently, and found it still crashing far too frequently to be acceptable.
I guess you like those cookie warnings that pollute the Internet these days? Because this would be cookie warnings all over again. Any site that's reasonably popular uses a CDN to increase scalability, improve performance, and add reliability. Half the Internet would need a new pop-up warning that a CDN is in use. The last thing we need is yet another pop-up when a page loads....
It doesn't need to be a pop up. Just behave like a HTTP site ("not secure" warning) when you could be MITM'd between yourself and the entity you think you are communicating with.
If it turned out "End to end" encrypted chat went through a third party that even transiently had access to the plaintext version of the chat (like how Cloudflare works) you'd be apoplectic.
It's impossible to know if a third party had access to the plain text. Hell even Cloudflare can be setup with actual end to end encryption where they can never see the contexts of the traffic. Most users don't want that as they want CDN features that require unencoding the data.
Said MBAs are in it for their annual bonuses. You'll see this in many companies today: go-nowhere/soon-to-be-canceled projects are launched -> bonuses are awarded -> people move on -> rinse and repeat. Only fools stick around for long-term gains. On the other hand - maybe the workers have finally cracked the corporate secret.
I hear a lot of this sentiment, but from what I see both internally at rh and news publicly available there is nothing to back up what you are saying. The decision seems to have been made by many long-tenured folk. So what if the opposite of what you’re saying is true?
I work with some long-tenured folks and am myself one (at a different open source company) and let me tell you that incentives are not the same as they were two decades ago -- and we've not sold out to fucking IBM.
Redhat people, as good as they may have been in the past, are now IBM people and if they aren't operating like IBM people they will be replaced by people who do.
SpaceX used to sell a version of this in their online store. I bought one for my son. I'm not sure what company manufactured it, but it doesn't seem to have an Estes branding. You can pick them up on eBay now, with a significantly inflated price (they were originally ~$50 from SpaceX):
https://www.ebay.com/p/1600662998
I'm the CTO of a bootstrapped SaaS product targeting the higher education market. We don't list a price on the website because there are many variables that affect the final price. Every school has their single-sign-on system, for example. There are obviously several popular options, but there's also a whole host of obscure options. Every university IT department has their own preferences about how the integration will go. That very much changes how time-consuming the implementation will be for our company, and thus affects the price. There's no way to know this until we talk about what kind of integration the school wants.
We also vary the price based on school size. Huge research-1 level schools pay more than tiny public liberal arts schools -- and rightly so. The big schools have more funding and more spare cash. They also have bigger, more complicated implementations since they have 50+ thousand students and hundreds of faculty. The size of the school also feeds into how expensive the customer is going to be to service, and thus affects our pricing.
How do I put all that into a single price on the website?
> The big schools have more funding and more spare cash.
There you go. Honest businesses don't make their prices with regards to how much "spare cash" their client might have.
> How do I put all that into a single price on the website?
You divide it into parts that can be priced. If there is a bespoke part you put an hourly rate for that implementation, or daily rate, or any way of counting the rate that suits you.
You can use the projects you have finished to publish examples for future potential clients, where they can compare a little bit and get a rough idea of what it would cost them.
Just getting any kind of price information out there is much better than nothing, because then a potential client knows if it's within their range. You also avoid people who cannot afford your product.
> Honest businesses don't make their prices with regards to how much "spare cash" their client might have.
Yes they do. This is indeed how supply and demand works, companies price what the market is willing to pay, it's just that in this case, the market is a clientele of 1.
I'd argue it's two different products with very different levels of support effort. Larger customers require much more time/effort than smaller customers. I could list an hourly rate, sure, but most customers don't even know where to begin with estimating how many consulting hours they'd need. I'd hate to lose a customer because they over-estimate the hours and think they can't afford it, or have them underestimate and be shocked later. Every customer is unique and there's no useful way to break it down into a pricing chart.
Let's say we charge everyone the "big customer" rate.. The smaller customers couldn't afford it. If we charged everyone the "small customer" rate, we'd put ourselves out of business by spending far too time on the big customers while not making enough revenue to cover the costs of serving the larger customers. If we're practical about it, the smaller customers just don't have budgets as large as the larger customers. If we want the smaller customers to buy in, we have to reduce the price to something that fits their budget.
I sympathize with big customers subsidizing small customers. That
premise applies to all percentage-based sales commission structures.
It's not clear whether showing a $1M mansion is any more work than
showing a $100k bungalow (certainly not 10X as much), but realtors obviously much prefer the former,
and will grudgingly take on the latter for portfolio reasons.
Enterprise deals are not the same as consumer deals. Even with consumer deals, I wouldn't expect a consultant to charge a flat fee for someone, it all depends on their needs. If the customer needs more in depth support, it makes sense that the consultant charge more. So too with enterprise deals.
You can come up with all manner of scenarios consistent with your business ethics. I'm sure I'd agree with them.
I just wanted to back GGGP's judgment of vendors who adjust pricing according to customer pocket depth. While I'm at it, your claim that individuals are markets unto themselves is also risible.
All I'm saying is, if all else were equal between a 5 million and a 500 million dollar company, it might not be very ethical to charge them differently. But the point is all else is not equal, they both might have vastly different needs, so it makes sense to charge them according to those needs, where the larger one likely has more complex and thus more expensive needs. Again, it's the same as a plumber charging different prices for a big house versus a small house, based on complexity.
It's very clearly Beta. No one claimed it's perfect/done/finished. Why is everyone so shocked that beta software has bugs?
We can certainly debate whether it's ethical to put beta software out on the public roads. Perhaps the Minimum Viable Product method isn't the best approach for transportation hardware.
But... surely we can all expect that beta software has bugs. So yes -- I expect it to be driving like a drunk 10yr old. Ideally that'll slowly improve as the software matures. That it made a mistake and has a bug isn't really news though.
Then it shouldn't be on public roads. Tesla could spend 3 billion dollars and build huge road complexes to test their stuff instead of putting the rest of us at risk.
Restore from off-site tape backup. The kind of service where you ship them ~dozen new tapes in a lockbox each week and they ship you the oldest dozen back. It's supposed to be the "if all of a data centers happen to burn to ashes simultaneously" option. If you say "give us all of our tapes, asap" and then have some pour souls swapping them out as fast as the data can be read... it would probably take a few weeks.
In support of your point, 360MB/s is an extremely conservative estimate. I'd expect that from LTO-6, which is around ten years old, and I would certainly hope their backups are on more modern gear than that.
I work for a pretty huge well-known fortune 500 company with a global presence and personally handle the tape rotations for several of our data centers, and they're all still on LTO-6 tapes
I'm not sure that's relevant. I would expect Home Depot, Berkshire Hathaway, Alphabet, and Atlassian to have wildly different priorities. Two of them are Fortune 500 companies that I think would do fine with LTO-6. Atlassian is supposedly a cloud-first organization which arguably should be pretty aggressively tiered anyway, much less tiered onto outdated tech.
