Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Enterprise-Fu

mike.daless.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#21

Post by jroseattle »

Trying to summarize what I'm reading here.

"Enterprise-y" appears to be a catch-all term for an organizational culture built on a foundation of lack-of-trust where interactions among people need to be gamed in order to accomplish...well, anything. And the presentation covers strategies of how to be effective in that kind of environment.

I like some of the tactical suggestions, which apply in any organization trying to get things done. I dislike all the actions that are based in hidden agendas or ulterior motives, no matter the intent.

As always, your mileage may vary.

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#22

Post by datadrivenangel »

jsty wrote: post #11

> what is "enterprisey"? > documentation over working software In the spirit of no true Scotsman, you're not truly enterprise until there is a combination of barely working software and aggressively wrong documentation working in perfect harmony

And that's the modernized system!

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#23

Post by yodon »

skrebbel wrote: post #16
yodon wrote: post #3

The content seems like it might be interesting but the presentation is so pretentious that it's quite literally unreadable. I gave up after about a dozen "give me the next word" finger taps on my phone. Just post the prose. Better writers and worse writers have done so, and people have read them.

Come on, it’s obviously a slide deck.

The comment predates the author's arrival in the the thread.

I did consider the possibility that it was a slide deck, but as a slide deck it appears designed for the presenter to read aloud the words the audience is seeing on the screen.

Presenting in that way is generally a much greater sin than simply making a pretentious web page, because the audience is generally trapped when faced with that sort of presentation. I "assumed the best" and assumed it was a web page rather than a slide deck.

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#24

Post by notabennett »

yodon wrote: post #3

The content seems like it might be interesting but the presentation is so pretentious that it's quite literally unreadable. I gave up after about a dozen "give me the next word" finger taps on my phone. Just post the prose. Better writers and worse writers have done so, and people have read them.

It's pretty readable on a desktop, just tap the arrow key.

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#25

Post by notabennett »

"Working code always beats vaporware" is very good advice. I got a lot better at engineering when I realized I could just... stop trying to convince people of things and start shipping instead.

You do have to be working on a long enough timeline. I've seen vaporware beat working code over the scale of a couple of years, when it's the current exec team's pet vaporware, but eventually execs rotate.

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#26

Post by ewuhic »

flavorjones wrote: post #15

:wave: Hey all. I'm the author. This content is over ten years old now (2013), as is the slide tech backing it. Hopefully it's obvious that the click-to-advance is a style that suits my presentation style, and I would have made different choices if I intended it to be consumed online. In any case, I've learned a lot since this talk and have on occasion considered updating it. I'm pretty surprised it's trending, TBH.

Hi! What does "A.B.D." stand for? I might have missed it from the prez.

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#27

Post by kqr »

ewuhic wrote: post #26
flavorjones wrote: post #15

:wave: Hey all. I'm the author. This content is over ten years old now (2013), as is the slide tech backing it. Hopefully it's obvious that the click-to-advance is a style that suits my presentation style, and I would have made different choices if I intended it to be consumed online. In any case, I've learned a lot since this talk and have on occasion considered updating it. I'm pretty surprised it's trending, TBH.

Hi! What does "A.B.D." stand for? I might have missed it from the prez.

I'm going to guess Always Be Delivering -- it's indeed in the slides!

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#28

Post by skrebbel »

yodon wrote: post #23
skrebbel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, it’s obviously a slide deck.

The comment predates the author's arrival in the the thread. I did consider the possibility that it was a slide deck, but as a slide deck it appears designed for the presenter to read aloud the words the audience is seeing on the screen. Presenting in that way is generally a much greater sin than simply making a pretentious web page, because the audience is generally trapped when faced with that sort of presentation.…

You know the author is in this thread, you weren’t there when this was presented, and you call “presenting it that way a much greater sin”. Why? What do you hope to accomplish with such a dismissive attitude?

You’re making a whole lot of assumptions man.

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#29

Post by sukruh »

> you know you're "enterprisey" if ... you don't know that you're a software company

That hit hard. I've seen so many companies that defined themselves as something else, despite employing more than 1000 programmers. In denial of being a software company - a bad one. Limping along due to strong brands or regulatory barriers to market entry.

Every day I'm getting more and more convinced that this attitude will get their lunch eaten by a company that can software.

Companies like Stripe and Rippling have so much potential displacing "enterprise", it's disgusting.

Re: Enterprise-Fu

#30

Post by sukruh »

sukruh wrote: post #29

> you know you're "enterprisey" if ... you don't know that you're a software company That hit hard. I've seen so many companies that defined themselves as something else, despite employing more than 1000 programmers. In denial of being a software company - a bad one. Limping along due to strong brands or regulatory barriers to market entry. Every day I'm getting more and more convinced that this attitude will get the…

"Fintech" only exists because the banks can't develop software. Change my mind.
Post reply on HN