Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Examples of reliable software you enjoy using

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 666 posts

Re: Ask HN: Examples of reliable software you enjoy using

#44
post #8

haproxy and redis are the two that come to mind. Not necessarily because they make me happy , but they never seem to make me angry or sad. Which with most infrastructure software is rare.

Terraform is surprisingly painless for new-ish software.

I've had several occasions it took action in production that weren't in the plan when we applied. Terraform has not made it to my warm and fuzzy list yet.

Re: Ask HN: Examples of reliable software you enjoy using

#46
I'm absolutely amazed I haven't seen Photoshop on the list yet.

Incredibly powerful, very reliable, thoroughly worth the pricetag - and I don't love subscription software.

It's generally a joy to use. And I can't think of another piece of powerful visual creation software that is.

Re: Ask HN: Examples of reliable software you enjoy using

#47
From the desktop, most of my development toolkit: bash, vim, git, etc.

On the server side of things: nginx, haproxy, redis, memcached, cron, logrotate, Linux

And controversially (probably since I've learned their quirks): MySQL, Nagios.

They all just... work. I use these tools to set up a server, and after configured, the VM usually goes down before they do.

On the flip side of things, tools I have to use and highly resent their lack of reliability: collectd, Docker, Safari/IE/Firefox/Chrome, OSX.

Re: Ask HN: Examples of reliable software you enjoy using

#49
Python. To a lesser extent, vim and tmux. ssh/scp.

I used to think bash was on that list... it seems relatively responsive and predictable. I use it all the time.

But then I realized how often bash has weird issues -- like completion hanging, or inexplicable inability to complete (this could be due to the distro though). Or it just seems easy to get it in a bad state by hitting the wrong keys, or dumping a binary file to the terminal.

And recently I have been looking through the bash source code, and it's a bit horrifying. The reliability is done by brute force of special cases over decades, not by good design.

I like the semantics of the shell language, in that it lets me get things done fast. But I don't like the syntax or the implementation I happen to use. bash is pretty complete, but not well implemented.

Post reply on HN