Bingo. You can know a specific technology inside and out, but easily get lost in a large system built in that technology if you haven't worked with it before.
It's very easy to get caught in assumptions like, "Nobody would ever do things THIS way, so they must have built it THAT way," only to find out that, once upon a time, THIS way was the right way to do things, only for it to over time become less and less optimal, but the costs of changing things were too high to fix it. Once your system is old enough and large enough, you'll have several thousand things just like that.
You might be right; the person you're replying to might have zero idea.
Now me... I know someone personally who was a senior exec for Twitter's software team, who left after Elon's purge.
He left because all the people who understood the system and could predict the side effects were fired or left. He'd been with companies going through death spirals before, and had no interest in being involved with another one.
So, while the person you're replying to might not know, my friend DOES know.
Yeah. The clickbait title suggests that big data tools themselves are going away; the actual contents are that the needless hype for their companies, folded into their sales pitches, is going away.
Oh, nonsense. People buy Atlassisn because the licensing is cheap, not because it's particularly good at what it does or designed with any particular workflow in mind.
I don't see how it is cheap. Standard may be cheap but then you are missing a lot of features that are announced on the product pages with a small footnote saying "only in premium".
Free software has zero acquisition cost, but non-zero TCO, which can measure in millions USD (recurring salary of dedicated IT team), depending on the size of organization and complexity of the setup.
You will need to maintain on-premise infrastructure, automate backups and recovery, automate security, automate updates (including testing and rollbacks) etc etc, basically doing all the jobs of the people responsible for the infrastructure at the SaaS provider, but at much smaller scale and not achieving the same efficiency. You will have to do those jobs considerably better to justify the costs.
in thirty years of experience, I see this talking point straight from Microsoft anti-Open Source days..
> Free software has zero acquisition cost, but non-zero TCO, which can measure in millions USD
Often a primary driver is exactly the opposite -- for-profit companies are accustomed to paying money for a good or service, with a billing pattern and legal obligations. The company financial deciders do not want a setup that does not have a billing pattern and clear legal obligations. Meanwhile, Open Source Software went from niche to mission-critical in the 2000s via the Internet. For-profit companies (and their publicists) scrambled to explain it, and came up with that exact line repeated again today. I do not blame any person for saying it, it was in print in some reliable place. It does not capture the reality in 2022 IMO.
> The company financial deciders do not want a setup that does not have a billing pattern and clear legal obligations.
I haven’t ever met a CTO or CIO, who would make budget decisions like that, neither I do it this way myself. The reality in 2022 is the same as it was in 2012 or in 2002: when you choose a solution, you consider all long term costs.
In 2022 TCO for the server software includes everything that I mentioned in my comment and more. There’s a lot of use cases for OSS in corporate environment, for sure, but not every OSS solution is cheap or even affordable. Running on-premise open source collaboration tool is certainly not cheap if you do it right.
Sure, if you host it yourself you have to pay someone to admin it (usually significantly more expensive than a license), and if you use a hosted solution you have to pay the host.
