[anymouse123456]

Can't speak for OP, but I've had more than a few similar experiences (from both sides of the fence FWIW).

I can think of one example in software deployment frequency. The observation (many years ago), was that it's painful and risky (therefore, expensive) to deploy software, so we should do it as infrequently as the market will allow.

Many companies used to be on annual release schedules, some even longer. Many organizations still resist deploying software more than every couple/few weeks.

~15 years ago, I was working alongside the other (obviously ignorant) people who believed that when something is painful, slow and repetitive, it should be automated. We believed that software deployment should happen continuously as a total non-event.

I've had to debate this subject with "experts" over and over and over again, and I've never met a single person who, once migrated, wanted to go back to the nightmare of slow, periodic software deployments.

[ndriscoll]

I don't see why a slow deployment cadence is a nightmare. When I've worked in that setting, it mostly didn't matter to me when something got deployed. When it did (e.g. because something was broken), we had a process in place to deploy only high priority fixes between normal releases.

Computers mostly just continue to work when you don't change anything, so that meant after the first week or so after a release, the chance of getting paged dropped dramatically for 3 months.

[anymouse123456]

Good question. The nightmare was mostly organizational.

The amount of politicking was incredible when it came to which features would be in the next push and which features would slip. The planning meetings, the arguments, the capability slashing, the instability that came from all these political decisions. It was not great and this enormous amount of churn literally disappeared when they moved to daily pushes.

[rtsil]

That's more "the experts had a (wrong) opinion on something" than "the experts overlooked something obvious". They didn't overlook it, they thought about it and came to a conclusion.

And if by "many years ago" you refer to a period where software deployment was mostly offline and through physical media, then it was indeed painful and risky (and therefore expensive). The experts weren't wrong back then.

[anymouse123456]

Great points, I agree with you.