[ghc]

Just for a second, imagine a company that isn't a software company, but needs software to run its business. Think manufacturing, logistics, shipping, construction, food (industrial scale egg production, for example) etc. There's a lot of companies like that out there...in fact it's almost all of them.

Those companies run all their boring, essential software (accounting, ERPs, etc.) on VMWare, Oracle, Azure, etc. Since software isn't their core business, they pay an external company to keep their software running. Like it or not, cloud providers are for software companies, and most companies have no interest in becoming a software company. They might have some small groups that do analytics or software in-house, and those groups might use cloud providers, but all the essential software will be run by a company you can call when something breaks, or if you're big enough embeds some staff in your office.

It's just good sense to outsource non-core functions. Software companies outsource hosting and datacenter stuff to AWS, etc. Why should enterprises deal with Linux directly?

[nimbius]

but thats just it, this argument only ever works if you dont care about performance or features and believe the marketing. You make eggs, and your target fixation only allows you to see eggs, so these companies hold some mysterious value to you.

KVM performance is orders of magnitude better than VMWare and handles migrations snapshots imports and exports without additional byzantine license agreements or mandatory minimums for hardware support on network switches and servers. Cockpit makes it dead simple to run.

Oracle performance is so awful the license terms do not allow you to release performance benchmarks or comparative analysis against other databases. it also has all the same heavy lifting you need to focus on for things like galera clusters or postgres, so theres no clear win unless you like paying Larry for the privilege of slow transactionals on a hyperconverged iron beast, or youre too lazy to figure out ODBC.

And Symantec so openly hates their customers they now bundle a cryptominer with their software. before that their incompetence was so blinding Google had to step in and force them to give up their CA business.

"enterprise" software is an absurd proposition for anyone smart enough to realize their business is more than just the end product. to everyone else, these companies are borderline predatory.

[treesknees]

> KVM performance is orders of magnitude better than VMWare

Do you have any sources for this? I worked at a company developing NFV appliances, we always had much higher network throughput on VMware than we did using KVM without using some type of convoluted vswitch alternative or PCI passthrough.

VMware isn't just a hypervisor, it's an entire ecosystem of VM management and orchestration. You can tie it into AD, delegate different permissions and roles to users/groups, manage upgrades, interact with PowerShell and other APIs, it has integration into Dell and Cisco solutions, all sorts of additional features you won't find running CentOS and KVM without adding more 3rd party software on top and cobbling it together.

[gregmac]

> VMware isn't just a hypervisor, it's an entire ecosystem of VM management and orchestration. You can tie it into AD, delegate different permissions and roles to users/groups, manage upgrades, interact with PowerShell and other APIs, it has integration into Dell and Cisco solutions, all sorts of additional features you won't find running CentOS and KVM without adding more 3rd party software on top and cobbling it together.

This is it, really. For big companies this kind of stuff is important.

And "cobbling it together" is very much understating the effort involved to keep it running: eventually you'll upgrade one of the components and it will break something, because you didn't read the release notes of an upstream dependency that mentioned a breaking change that affects your particular setup.

Having the vendor (vmware) provide this as a delivered, tested, supported solution is so much easier.

Similarly, I suspect it would be significantly simpler to find IT firms and/or hire individuals with VMware knowledge than it would be to find the equivalent on KVM + Cockpit + the dozen other components you need.

Note: I'm not saying this is right or the way things should be, but simply pointing out the "enterprise" perspective. Boring technology is safe.

[foobiekr]

Same. VMware leagues better than the various horrible Openstack deployments some customers want to use.

I have in depth knowledge of kvm and the issue isn’t kvm it’s everything else.

[nimbius]

colour me unimpressed. VMWare cheerleaders haul out openstack as their touchstone example of how hard VM's are in linux but forget that VMWare pales in comparison to what Openstack is, which is an entire full-stack cloud hosting provider with accounting, DNS, tenant metering and network delegation, and support for k8s.

Start comparing VMWare against Proxmox, which is an out of the box solution anyone can use and includes every single feature of ESX and many vsphere features youd easily lose your shirt for. https://www.proxmox.com/en/

heres an independent performance test. KVM is easily faster than ESX.

https://www.spec.org/virt_sc2013/

[treesknees]

You've missed the point a bit, and for the record I prefer to deploy Proxmox/KVM over VMware most of the time, I'm not a VMware cheerleader.

There are plenty of features Proxmox doesn't have that VMware does have. I've ran into a few of them

1. No ability to pin vCPUs to physical CPUs from within Proxmox. You have to drop to bash and set affinity for each vCPU's PID by hand if you want that.

2. You can't provision a VM with more vCPUs than physical CPUs. For example if I have a host with 8 cores, the max vCPU I can allocate to a VM is 8. And yes, I did have a use case for this.

3. You can't configure networked serial ports from within Proxmox. You have to drop to bash and edit the vm configuration file by hand if you want that.

4. Lack of serial port concentrator, which means you can't really use networked serial ports reliably when migrating VMs across hosts in a Proxmox cluster. In the NFV world this can be pretty important.

5. You can't manage multiple Proxmox VM hosts from a single UI unless they're clustered, which in many cases isn't practical to do. vSphere will let you manage multiple independent hosts from a single pane of glass.

6. (at least historically) lack of RSS/multiqueue in virtio networking. vmxnet3 on VMware supports this and allows you to scale better. But I will admit it's been several years since I've had a look at this area.

Again I'm not a VMware cheerleader. I'm sure I could generate a list like this for what Proxmox has that VMware lacks. But it's incorrect to state that it includes every single feature of ESX.

[thedougd]

I've deployed the full VMware Integrated OpenStack running on ESXi, NSXT, and network attached storage; everyone was happy. Users happily deploying full stacks via API in their own Tenant with tools like Terraform. Operators thrilled to be able to patch and reboot a host without even a notification email because VMware Live Migration. The bosses without a worry because in the end it's just running on VMware.

Expensive as hell though.

[scarface74]

You don’t grok “the enterprise”. Any CTO of a large company would feel much better about having VMWare behind them and their ecosystem than your proposed solution.

“No one ever got fired for buying IBM” applies equally to big enterprise SaaS providers and companies like Oracle, Microsoft, VMWare, Salesforce, etc.

[rad_gruchalski]

I learned this lesson in an interview once. I was bullish on sap pricing and the cost of consultants. The person from top management, multi-billion chemical, said “you think we have no money”? They did, 2 years later they’ve opened a brand new building to fit a 1000 of those consultants.

[tlamponi]

Proxmox provides enterprise support staffed mostly by devs and engineers, and not some crappy outsourced service asking you the three questions from their predefined support handling sheet.

It is also deployed in many many enterprise and government settings.

[scarface74]

Again, you’re arguing about technology which is besides the point. A CTO in the enterprise is going to make the safe choice.

Also, notice when you go to VMWare’s home page you see “referenceable clients” - ie well known companies that use the software? This is “Enterprise Marketing 101”.

Besides, I can throw a stick and find someone who knows VMWare. As a (hypothetical) CTO of a non tech company, I don’t want “support”, I might want an MSP to do it for me.

[amenod]

I agree with you - and you are still missing the point. The enterprises are buying a service. They don't care that it is running on AHWRGGG instead of TLMWBBB (which is soooo much better). What they care about is that it runs, and when it doesn't, that someone fixes it. This is it. Could you run everything on PostgreSQL instead of Oracle? Yes, take a look at EnterpriseDB. I guess Oracle just sells better? (guessing here, no idea)

The money is of course important, but these providers are smart. They take only what they can and not more. Which is still big money. And while Oracle & co. would never make it into any company I can make a decision for, I don't think that keeps them awake at night - there are enough (big!) fish in the ocean.

[thedougd]

Where you get screwed is when some legacy system of record application requires Oracle. So you think, I'll cheat and use Postgresql with an Oracle dialect. Then you find out the application uses tens of thousands of lines of PL/SQL including some of the most obscure features. Now you're looking at millions of dollars to get off the database software you don't like. Oracle, IBM, etc can buy time like this but eventually all the proponents of their software will be retired and the halls of IT will be filled with an army of "never again."

We meet on Wednesdays; the coffee and cookies are free.

[fragmede]

You could run everything on Xen instead of VMware, except as you point out - you can't really. Oracle is similarly positioned. Their database software is just one piece of a much larger ecosystem of products. An "enterprise solution", if you will. Oracle actually competes with VMware in the broader enterprise space.

[mbreese]

> if you dont care about performance or features

Bingo! If you are a manufacturing company, you care about two things:

1) does this software do the job I need?

2) does this software cost less than the value I get out of using it?

If the answer is "yes and yes" then -- congratulations! you made a sale!

Sure, if some other company comes in and says "hey, I can do the same job, but cheaper," the customer would listen. But so long as the software works good enough, then the externalities of support contracts, billing, "enterprisey-stuff" may matter more than features or performance.

[ghaff]

>if you dont care about performance or features and believe the marketing

I don't except to the degree that the product is more or less suitable for my business needs. And note I said product, which KVM by itself is not. If I'm going to use KVM--and, yes, I likely would rather than VMware unless I otherwise needed VMware for some reason--I'd be buying it as part of a supported commercial Linux distribution.

[scarface74]

Would you suggest that all companies write their own office suites? Manage their own SSO solutions? Manage their own mail servers? Manage their own expense system (Concur)? Manage their own payroll (ADP)? Every small company manage their own benefits (Insperity)? Do whatever Workday does?

The health care organizations overwhelmingly use third party EHR/EMR systems and schools use third party companies for enrollment (Blackboard).

It doesn’t make sense to bring any those in house.

[rconti]

No, it only ever works if you care about your core competencies more than performance or features of the software products you run your business on.

Remember, not only are most non-software companies better at their business than they are at software, they're also not hiring from the same tech talent pool, they're not paying their tech people as much, they're not letting the tech run their business.

[eatYourFood]

lulwut?

I've got several clients that pay over 500k/year to a SaaS ERP vendor. The ERP system is the very definition of enterprise software.

What would you suggest I advise my clients when it comes to their finance, inventory, order management, logistics etc?

I guess they could piece together various SaaS solutions to create some sort of composable microservice based system to meet their needs but that's a massive engineering overhead when they can just get all of the functionality they need on one big fat enterprise ERP system.

The cosmetics manufacturer I work with does not care about what the technologists (people like you and me) care about. They just want to run their manufacturing and wholesale operation and if Oracle are offering one system that does it all, why wouldn't they take that deal?

[nousermane]

Exactly. Most "enterprise" software competes with a team of 3 doing it all in excel. At this rate, $100k/yr is a bargain.

[FredPret]

I do ERP and the thought of replicating it in Excel… yikes. For a big company you’ll need a team of hundreds and a huge surplus of sanity, and you’ll still have a worse outcome.

An ERP is basically a database with an interface with business logic built in. Certainly not something you want to do in Excel.

[foobiekr]

When people talk enterprise they are talking 2000+ person companies. They are not doing their ERP payroll etc using excel.

[squarefoot]

> Why should enterprises deal with Linux directly?

Not just Linux but IT in general. It may have to be about security; my impression is that at least some of the widespread successful attacks in recent years might have been prevented if non IT companies had their own IT department, servers and in house security teams. Relying on an external provider is cheap and comfortable, until the day a single vulnerability screws all its customers data in a single day.

[hnarn]

> if non IT companies had their own IT department

I think you vastly underestimate the cost of on-prem IT, especially for small and medium sized businesses. The "floor" cost of your own IT is many, many orders of magnitude higher than a subscription to something like Office 365 for something like 50 people.

"Normal" people don't use cloud services because they're lazy, they do it because the economics of rolling your own IT does not make sense, and hasn't since the days when it stopped being your only option.

[mfer]

Having your own It department doesn't mean you'll be fine for security. Plenty of health systems have their own IT department and have been hit.

But, even thinking of health care systems is thinking of big businesses. How does a road construction company justify an IT department or security team? Think of businesses like that. They have have an IT guy who manages services they use and is an expert at using those.

Most businesses are small to medium in size and non-tech.

[imwillofficial]

I work in this area and it’s the opposite.

Small businesses with in house It get hacked waaaaasy more.

[yobbo]

> but needs software to run its business

In this case, they have no need for VMWare or Oracle.

Actually, the parent comment is on to something. "Brand name" enterprise software is a buoy that certain types of careerists handcuff themselves to, which allows them to float through their careers fairly unchallenged.

At one point in time, IBM had this market position. Then Microsoft, Oracle, and now Amazon and Google.

[hnarn]

> Actually, the parent comment is on to something. "Brand name" enterprise software is a buoy that certain types of careerists handcuff themselves to

Or maybe, just maybe, really big corporations that make software solutions are often really big because their solutions are, if not feature-wise the absolute best, by far the most stable and reliable?

If one were to buy your argument, that would be like saying that businesses buying the Google Apps suite is nonsensical, because the only reason you'd ever use Google is because you're a "careerist" that "only know" Google.

That's obviously not true, Gmail and the rest of the Google suite have been market-leading for many years, because they are good solutions that solve real problems. Presumably the same thing goes for the Microsoft Office suite, and so on.

[yobbo]

People are now starting careers as Office 365 "officers". From now until retirement, they will champion Office 365 and its successors in all situations, because in effect they will be championing their own CVs.

Just like people did with IBM, Oracle, J2EE, and so on.

If at one point Google Apps is superior to Office 365 makes no difference.

The insight is that the careerists are the effective insider salesmen of enterprise software. Not specs, benchmarks, stats or anything like that.

[hnarn]

Why can’t multiple things be true at the same time?

The idea of product “officers” can be bizarre and counter productive, while that product simultaneously can be one of the best in the market.

I’m not saying that O365 is great, I use it at work and I hate it, but enterprise software has always been like this: it’s not enough to be better, you need to be something like 3x better, but if you are it doesn’t matter if you’re going up against Microsoft. Software is a lot more competitive in that way than a lot of other industries.

[yobbo]

The pain occurs because of the symbiosis between technical lock-in and careerists.

If a tech company has achieved both technical and organizational lock-in (or maybe "capture"), specs don't matter.

[scarface74]

It doesn’t matter if Google Apps itself is superior. Google is not exactly known for its enterprise support. You also can’t count on the long term focus of Google. You know when you buy into the MS ecosystem you are going to get great enterprise support, they don’t have the attention span of a crack addled flea like Google does, it’s going to integrate well with the rest of their products, you get deep discounts from bundling.

Specs and benchmarks only matter to geeks.

[amenod]

Gmail is a market leader only because it is good enough (and at the start it was even better than competition) and because it was free - and still is for some cases. Can't comment on Google Apps, never used them.

Otherwise, I'm not sure I would put Google in the mix with Oracle / MS and others. They are firmly non-enterprise, in that it is notoriously difficult to get any support from them, even if you are paying (there are exceptions, yadda yadda...). With Oracle, their products may suck (and they do), but the company knows to answer the phone for their customers, otherwise they won't be able to sell that beefy contract in a few months' time.

> Or maybe, just maybe, really big corporations that make software solutions are often really big because their solutions are, if not feature-wise the absolute best, by far the most stable and reliable?

Oracle? Lol.

[vel0city]

> Can't comment on Google Apps, never used them.

> They are firmly non-enterprise

So you acknowledge you don't really have knowledge of the core enterprise suite Google sells to enterprises, but at the same time you're certain they're non-enterprise?

Google Workspace (the new-ish name for Google Apps) is absolutely enterprise. They definitely have enterprise support contracts, and the few times I've had issues while having a support contract they have been easy to work with.

[scarface74]

> Google Workspace (the new-ish name for Google Apps.

You hit the nail on the head why enterprises stay away from Google. They are going to lose focus on it as soon as no one internally can justify maintaining it to enhance their careers and show “scope” and “impact”.

[vel0city]

They've been selling Google Workspace for 16 years. Its one of the biggest MDM platforms out there. ~~There are over 2 billion users of this paid enterprise suite.~~ Guess I was wrong on that figure, >2 billion users with >6 million paid subscriptions.

[hnarn]

I don’t have direct experience with administrating Oracle, but my impression is that they make a lot of money from the moats they’ve built: but they would never have been able to build them if the product was garbage to begin with. Sure, nobody would probably pick Oracle today for a new project almost regardless of size, but surely there must have been a point in time when Oracle was simply superior when it came to stability and functionality? If not, their current size really makes no sense, because you can’t build a business on scamming people in the long run.

[tetha]

5 - 10 years back, Oracle was very far ahead of the database game and there was no practical competitor regarding performance, query optimization, storage management and enterprisey management features. For quite some time, if you needed a large central relational store for a business, Oracle was the only answer.

The main change is that MariaDB and PostgreSQL have caught up a lot of ground over the last years, so OracleDB has been losing the edge they have been paid for.

[yobbo]

> because you can’t build a business on scamming people in the long run.

When switching is effectively impossible, this is what happens.

Oracle has been buying various application companies with installed bases that are difficult to migrate away from. They are essentially buying customers to milk after putting in their enclosed pasture.

[parasubvert]

Switching isn't impossible, there are plenty of companies that help you get off Oracle. It's just that it's risky and time consuming, requires specialized knowledge, and companies would rather pay up than deal with all of those things. But this goes for almost any complex product on the planet. Switching costs are high,

[scarface74]

Gmail in no shape form or fashion a “market leader” in the enterprise.

[unabridged]

Nontech companies are only using spreadsheets, forms, and storage. But they spend their technical manpower on implementing business logic in closed source locked-in expensive software. I don't think its much more work just to implement the business logic in excel/google sheets and serverless functions, and end up with something much much cheaper and much more portable.

[indymike]

> Why should enterprises deal with Linux directly?

Um... perhaps because it is less costly and will lead to better capabilities, more reliability, less complexity than burying it under 18 layers of apis, containers, and virtual machines.

[adrr]

If you think there is efficiency gains in terms of cost savings. Why don't you do a startup to try to go after the enterprise software market? We spend millions on ERP, PLM, SCM,WMS, etc. We would gladly move to cheaper solutions that offered the same feature sets. I don't have choice about VMWare because a bunch of software requires on-prem hosting due to latency(need sub 10ms for sensors) and the software is built on top of windows.

[noizejoy]

> … perhaps because it is less costly and will lead to better capabilities, more reliability, less complexity than burying it under 18 layers of apis, containers, and virtual machines.

Over the years, I’ve come to suspect that maybe the technology is less of a differentiator in the overall effectiveness of a company’s IT environment than the people running it.

And with IT staffing supply having lagged behind demand (as also evidenced by relatively high salaries in IT vs many other professions), you could easily argue that it was (still is?) historically more difficult to hire good IT people than in many other professions.

And arguably that’s making outsourcing of IT needs relatively more attractive than outsourcing of other business functions where reasonably competent leadership and staffing is easier to come by.

And arguably, capturing many of the benefits of Open Source require more IT competency than using off the shelf mainstream commercial software. If I’m using the same crap that everyone of my competitors is using, none of us win or lose on that. But when using Open Source, I’m more likely to depend on the quality of my IT leadership and staff to outcompete my competitors. And unless a CEO is quite IT literate, s/he probably doesn’t want that additional headache of becoming good at figuring out how to hire good IT leadership.

So I’d hazard a guess, that insourcing and the use of Open Source will become more attractive for many corporations only if/when IT salaries drop more in line with other professions.

[tnel77]

Because Linux is fun! /s

[JohnJamesRambo]

Sounds like a tax for stupidity and laziness, like AWS. This is how I feel about most B2B companies and software. I wonder how a recession and the end of free funny money will change that whole sector?

[jjice]

> Sounds like a tax for stupidity and laziness

I pay a barber to cut my hair. Sure, I could learn how to cut my own hair, but there's a good chance I'll spend a lot of time and still mess it up.

I pay a mechanic to fix my car for serious repair. Sure, I could learn how to replace a transmission, but there's a good chance I'll spend a lot of time and still mess it up.

If these (and the endless examples of paying professionals) are a tax for stupidity and laziness, then everyone is lazy and stupid. If you're not a software company, there's a good chance it's worth it to save the time to pay someone to set it up for you. Also, if Joe's Fish Market wants a POS system and needs a server for it and he decides to set it up himself, if he gets it up and running, what are the chances it'll stay up to day and not have a firewall issue? Probably pretty low compared to if a professional did it.

Joe wants to focus on selling fish. That's where he's a pro. I don't know anything about fish, but I could set up a server for him. We all have our own skills, and it's often worth while to leverage other people's skills, because they'll do it faster, better, and it will likely end up cheaper after time and security are taken into consideration.

[yobbo]

> I pay a barber to cut my hair.

Meaningless analogy. Here some other meaningless analogies:

Why would anyone ever own a frying pan? Not only do you need to rent a stove, you also need to hire a chef to cook with frying pan, you need a station with chefs that prep ingredients and so on. Just go to a restaurant.

You pay a mechanic to fix your car? Why would anyone ever own a car when you can rent a car whenever you need one.

You pay a barber to cut your hair? Why not just wear a wig!

And so on ...

[filmgirlcw]

I mean, people do most of those things (the wig analogy is a bit off but people do get weeves and extensions) — not everyone, but I don’t cook, as an example. I own a frying pan, but I don’t know the last time I’ve ever used it. As a general rule, I don’t cook.

And many, many people don’t own a car, not because they can’t afford one but because it makes more sense to rent one or hire a car service when needed. Frankly, my dream scenario is to have enough money to hire a personal driver who is on-demand and at the ready when I need to go out and do things. For plenty of people, that’s anathema. But for me, I don’t like driving (or cooking) and I’d much rather pay someone to do it for me.

The same is true for software. I like tinkering with a lot of my own software, but if I was building my own business, I sure as shit would rather pay for an established company to handle some of the grunt work, rather than hiring dedicated teams that in aggregate would cost a lot of money.

The rise of SaaS and PaaS isn’t just laziness. It’s a recognition that for a lot of people, even developers, we’d rather entrust a lot of the operations and IT work to someone else.

[yobbo]

> The rise of SaaS and PaaS isn’t just laziness.

My point is that none of the analogies are arguments for (or against) SaaS, or in this case "brand name" enterprise software.

Whenever any of these comically banal analogies are brought out to sell something, the intention always seems to be to suspend critical thinking.

There exists many legitimate arguments, for many things. They never begin with "why would anyone need a frying pan".

[jnovek]

I lease a car every four years in part so that I don’t have to deal with the inevitable car repairs that come after that point.

For some — but not all — people, that’s a preferable option.

For some — but not all — companies, enterprise tech is a preferable option.

[yencabulator]

I typically own cars 4-10 years old. I'm currently still happy with a 2008 model that has had exactly one non-maintenance, non-upgrade, cost -- which wouldn't even have prevented using it in any way, I just like the emissions system to be as eco-friendly as it can.

"Inevitable repairs after 4 years" is just a delusion, and silly.

Might I suggest you be honest with yourself and say you like the new car feel? Maybe even like it as a status symbol? Don't want to think about what tires to buy to replace worn-out ones?

I'm the opposite. I like having a scuffed-up car (or in this case, jeep), with dogs climbing all over the seats and sand everywhere from going off road. I'd rather use the thing and have fun on the trip.

Even if I drove my jeep off a cliff, called it a total loss, and got nothing back from insurance, I'd lose less money than you lost in 3 years of leasing -- and I've already had the thing longer than that.

[jnovek]

“Might I suggest you be honest with yourself and say you like the new car feel? Maybe even like it as a status symbol? Don't want to think about what tires to buy to replace worn-out ones?”

Dead wrong.

I lease the cheapest car that is practical for my situation. I consider cars completely utilitarian tools. I get no joy from them, I hate driving and take public transit whenever I can.

I had very little money until I was in my late 20s when my career prospects finally took off. Cheap cars that failed frequently were a constant source of anxiety because I couldn’t get far enough ahead to maintain savings. When my career improved and I could afford small luxuries, I spent the money on leasing because I wanted to avoid the anxiety of cars breaking down. It was a gift to myself to lower my stress level.

EDIT: also, in northern Minnesota where the winters are hard and everything is covered in salt, car trouble DOES start after 4 years. Sometimes before.

[rconti]

Wow, you argued with the parent about their own priorities, and then proved their point anyway.

Yes, they don't want to think about what tires to buy. Or whether it needs to be fixed or not. The fact that repairs are not in inevitability but a possibility is part of the point.

The parent is making the point that they're rather throw money at the problem and not have to think about it, not that they've precisely run the numbers on all of the possibilities and decided their outcome is the most cost-effective.

[skinnymuch]

Not thinking about the tires is exactly the point. You said it yourself. What are you arguing for then?

The OP prob doesn’t want to enjoy the car. It’s a car. I don’t care about cars either. I don’t enjoy them as much as use them for their purpose of transportation.

[vel0city]

Why would you pay for municipal water supply? Just laziness. Put a well in instead and maintain it.

And when putting in the well, why would you pay someone else to dig it for you? Just laziness. Dig it yourself!

And then when digging the well, why would you rent the drill? Just laziness, outsourcing the maintenance and ownership costs to someone else.

And then why bother buying the drill at some market where they're then manufacturing the drill for you? Pure laziness. Just make the drill yourself!

Or maybe, you just go with a trusted service instead of learning how to manufacture digging equipment when all you really want is running water.

[teh64]

For the first two, there are definitely people how live like that, because of surprise tech companies like Uber making it possible.

Also literally everyone and every company relies on someone else to provide some services or hardware to enable people to do their job and live. Even this conversation could not even happen without other people making sure internet connections are kept stable. This whole "one person is an island" ideology is not something a lot of people subscribe to.

Some companies don't want to spend time doing software things that are not core to their business, so they pay other companies which sometimes do it better. Most definitely not always, but for some companies it would still be better than some in-house hodgepodge.

[scarface74]

Actually, I seriously have been thinking about not owning a car ever again. We are the typical two car family. But I went a year without a car and I still go weeks on end without a car when my son needs it.

Uber is actually cheaper for me than a car + insurance + maintenance. I work from home. I’m going to give my car to my son when we move.

When I need to see my parents 200 miles away, I can hop on a small plane for $300 round trip and just work from there for a week.

[depaya]

There are other good replies to you, but one other thing I'll add: for a lot of companies it is much much easier to pay a steady $xxx/month than it is to pay a large amount up front and budget for unknown variable costs down the road.

[lp0_on_fire]

Would you consider a chef who buys produce from the market as opposed to buying a farm and growing it on their own "stupid and lazy"?

[JohnJamesRambo]

It’s more like being a chef and paying another company to cut up your ingredients for you and cook them.

Companies these days just want to specialize in making cool menu designs and marketing and waiting on the three star Michelin review to roll in somehow.

[simiones]

> It’s more like being a chef and paying another company to cut up your ingredients for you and cook them.

That would be like a Hypervisor company paying VMWare to re-distribute ESXi or something.

But a farm company buying VMWare ESXi to run its IT infra instead of using, say, CentOS is exactly like a chef sourcing ingredients instead of growing them herself.

[teh64]

That is not the same analogy, because a chef's job is to make food, but say a trucking companies job is not to create GPS and mapping software, or some HR tool which tracks sick days etc... The difference is what the core competency of the company is.

[xbar]

Small companies will fail and vanish. Large companies will layoff employees and reinvest in technology to leverage the ones that remain. B2B software companies would do well to retain existing developers and grow their teams if possible to meet scaling demand and cover feature gaps in existing product lines as part of normal business.

One part of the dynamic, simplified: big companies can show quickest cost savings by laying off employees; this satisfies anxious shareholders during the bumpy times by suggesting that management is wiling to make "hard decisions." Such companies cannot quickly re-tool their technology stacks nor renegotiate 3-year software contracts. B2B companies tend to do very well as long as they are not solely focused on their startup/growth/pre-IPO customers, who get hit hard.

Here are some arguments for post-downturn tech growth: 1981 and the use of the PC + Lotus/WordPerfect/BASIC for efficient local compute 1990 and the surge of the LAN to replace centralized IT 2001 and the swell of SaaS 2008 and the swell of cloud 2022 and the .....

[rootusrootus]

If you're right, then this looks like a great opportunity to outcompete these dumb, lazy companies that don't know how to run a business.