| I feel like the author themselves is a bit scattered on this point. In the very quote you lead with, they link to another post[1], which says "...MySQL is boring. Postgres is boring." Our author says they don't like that Boring approach, but then they advocate for a "pets, not cattle" approach, which I think is in line with administering a MySQL server, or such. Maybe this all comes down to different people's definitions of Boring. Maybe modern developers think of "Cloud everything" as the boring/playbook approach, while other people (like me) see the older (in my mind simpler) idea of administering a few machines, maybe even on bare metal, to be Boring. You wrote: > So, do you leverage those solutions to help you solve your problem? Or do you let your engineers re-invent the wheel so they can feel smart? In my charitable interpretation of TFA, I think they are saying to let your engineers use smaller-scale solutions/technologies that address the problem at hand, as needed, rather than getting pulled into the Cloud-everything solve-all-your-future-problems-you-don't-even-have-yet ball of wax that's often advocated these days. I can get behind that sentiment, but yeah I'm not a big fan of the way it's framed in the article, and I have never liked the "rockstar" term. [1] https://mcfunley.com/choose-boring-technology |