331–340 of 522 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, it seems like nowhere is this truer than SF/SV. Outside the bubble, it isn't always the case, or the structure can be a bit different, but salespeople in the Valley (as it were) are a different breed.
No, it's just how sales works, it's almost always on commission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, to dig into (and maybe stretch) one of your analogies a little bit: > Tomato farmers make a profit selling tomatoes at a price much lower than the cost to grow tomatoes at home. This is because at home, you have an elastic need for tomatoes. One week you need a few, the next week you need none, the next week you need a lot. In that case, yes, growing your own tomatoes would be very silly. (This part of the analog…
My comment wasn't really about Oxide, it's about the fallacy. A person can't succeed in life thinking they can do something cheaper on the sole basis that the other guy makes a profit. The much more likely explanation is that the other guy makes their profit by being much, much better than you. To stretch the metaphor to a grotesque extent, I think Oxide stands in the middle between the home-grown and the industrial…
That's fair! Just like, pointing out that on-prem can make financial sense.
> To stretch the metaphor to a grotesque extent,
I like it, haha.
Oxide is a fully closed ecosystem. The product seems cool but it sucks from an open computing perspective. The “iPhone” of the data center.
What would you like to see open that isn't? The major thing I can think of is not opening up like, our CAD files for the hardware. But that's pretty far away from your characterization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was skeptical as well, if only because just being a better product isn't enough to win the market. Everything we hear about Oxide sounds like an impressive green field implementation of a data center, but is that enough? Do the people making buying decisions at this scale care if their sysadmins have better tools?
> Do the people making buying decisions at this scale care if their sysadmins have better tools? Look at who oxide is selling to and for what reasons. It's about compute + software at rack scales. It does not matter if it is good it matters that it's integrated. Gear at this level is getting sold with a service contract and "good" means you dont have to field as many calls (keeping the margins up). > Everything we he…
> Look at their CPU density and do the math on power. It's fairly low density. Look at the interconnects (100gb per system). Also fairly conservative. It's the perfect product to replace hardware that is aging out, as you wont have to re-plumb for more power/bandwidth, and you still get a massive upgrade.
It sounds like the CPU density and network bandwidth are not great. If it's only suitable to replace aging systems, does that not limit their TAM? Or is that going to be their beachhead for grabbing further market share.
I'm a Bryan Cantrill fan so I'm glad this is working out, I was extremely skeptical of them at the beginning(on HN too), I think because I've built DCs for many years and was stuck in a mindset that served my use case, I've come around to Oxide. My main concerns originally were 2 fold: "this seems bougie", is there actually a market for this, and, is there a good interoperability story with mix and match. From what I…
I still dont get it. If someone else's software is running the hardware, what difference does it make if its on-prem or offsite?
What is the initial cost to setup their smallest system on prem?
Not finding a ton of information about it, was curious about it too. But the "smallest system" seems huge, like 16 sleds and a HN comment from 2023 ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38498840 ) says: > An oxide rack has a minimum cost of something like 600k not including all the infra you need to run a rack, maintenance, and then needing to upgrade So maybe not super useful for people who are looking to do some h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm good enough at my job to see that when it's happening. That's one reason why I didn't say 'I think.' Another is because I know the way to bet is that, with this weapon forbidden, others will be found to replace it. Why go into any of that without even the promise of hazard pay? I'd rather just do honest work.
This "job" that you speak of, that you are so good at. Are you... at it now?
Hello, Bryan! No, I'm on my own dime, no one else's. But it's decent of you to show such concern over my situation, in these uncertain times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead, we simply do our jobs, and get paid our salary. And some of "us" have an ownership stake, and some of "us" do not. But "we" like to talk about how everyone's working on a level playing field, anyway. You're quite right. It isn't an environment for me.
Small nit, everyone has an ownership stake, it's that some are larger than others.
I wouldn't wish to be taken as saying no employee is ever more valuable to the business than another. That would also be absurd. What I don't understand is why all the circumlocution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salary and equity have nothing to do with what you "deserve", only what you're able to negotiate.
For early/mid stage startups - this is an awful position to take. These orgs are heavily influenced by who they hire - what you pay defines your incentive structure. Does the world class engineer or business development lead just take it easy and travel around after they join? Does the new manager push the team and business forward or prioritize stability? Do engineers spend their time on reactors and impressive soun…