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

Decisions that eroded trust in Azure – by a former Azure Core engineer

isolveproblems.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 697 posts

Re: Decisions that eroded trust in Azure – by a former Azure Core engineer

#661

Post by bombcar »

branko_d wrote: post #205

I think this is especially problematic (from Part 4 at https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize... ): "The team had reached a point where it was too risky to make any code refactoring or engineering improvements. I submitted several bug fixes and refactoring, notably using smart pointers, but they were rejected for fear of breaking something." Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to first…

> Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to first cover everything with tests and then meticulously fix bugs, without shipping any new features.

Isn't this where Oracle is with their DB? Wasn't HN complaining about that?

Re: Decisions that eroded trust in Azure – by a former Azure Core engineer

#662

Post by staticassertion »

Spooky23 wrote: post #655
staticassertion wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It "means nothing" that the way that government systems get set up for government data is all using Microsoft tooling?

The tail wags the dog. GCP and Workspace have had better FedRAMP certs for ages.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with having "better fedramp certs". If you are setting up fedramp or cmmc you will be heavily, heavily pressured and incentivized to do so with Microsoft tooling.

"Better" isn't relevant, which is my entire point. The reason people choose Microsoft isn't "it's better for this", it's because every consultancy out there, every government agency or affiliate, etc, is going to push Microsoft very very hard.

Re: Decisions that eroded trust in Azure – by a former Azure Core engineer

#663

Post by BobbyTables2 »

praptak wrote: post #228
branko_d wrote: post #205

I think this is especially problematic (from Part 4 at https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize... ): "The team had reached a point where it was too risky to make any code refactoring or engineering improvements. I submitted several bug fixes and refactoring, notably using smart pointers, but they were rejected for fear of breaking something." Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to first…

This isn't incentivized in corporate environment. Noticed how "the talent left after the launch" is mentioned in the article? Same problem. You don't get rewarded for cleaning up mess (despite lip service from management) nor for maintaining the product after the launch. Only big launches matter. The other corporate problem is that it takes time before the cleanup produces measurable benefits and you may as well get…

It’s also a customer problem.

In a product where a customer has to apply (or be aware of updates), it’s easier to excite them about new features instead of bug fixes.

Especially for winning over new customers.

If the changelog for a product’s last 5 releases are only bug fixes (or worse “refactoring” that isn’t externally visible), most will assume either development is dead or the product is horribly bug ridden - a bad look either way.

Re: Decisions that eroded trust in Azure – by a former Azure Core engineer

#665

Post by axel479343 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #560
dgellow wrote: post #460

All those discussions about career suicide. Are you all that afraid to do what you think is right because you could get fired? What Axel does by coming public with his named attached is remarkable. He gains a lot of respect in my book. Even if it is one sided and details are missing

The career suicide wasn't escalating (although probably that was job suicide). The career suicide is venting and airing all of your former employee's dirty laundry. Unless your former employer is doing something deeply unethical, writing hit pieces against them after you leave is going to make you less attractive to future employers. Before this article, employers would see "experienced and available cloud engineer."…

that's a boomer ass take the world doesn't work like this anymore

Re: Decisions that eroded trust in Azure – by a former Azure Core engineer

#668

Post by branko_d »

egorfine wrote: post #332
branko_d wrote: post #205

I think this is especially problematic (from Part 4 at https://isolveproblems.substack.com/p/how-microsoft-vaporize... ): "The team had reached a point where it was too risky to make any code refactoring or engineering improvements. I submitted several bug fixes and refactoring, notably using smart pointers, but they were rejected for fear of breaking something." Once you reach this stage, the only escape is to first…

writing tests and then meticulously fixing bugs does not increase shareholders' value.

Dave Cutler and his team are a clear counter-example. They famously shipped Windows NT with zero known bugs, which clearly brought enormous shareholder value.

The problem, of course, is that this sort of thing doesn’t bring value next quarter.

Re: Decisions that eroded trust in Azure – by a former Azure Core engineer

#670

Post by axelriet »

ohyoutravel wrote: post #41
bigbuppo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CEO is accountable to the board. If they are derelict in their obligations to the company, that's where you need to raise a stink so they can fix it.

Well, yeah, that’s what a board does, but I think the issue is whether it is customary to go to the board directly in this situation. The answer is a resounding NO. Very odd, but cool idea and approach.

“customary” referred to the path through the Secretary, as opposed to writing to individual members. I added a clarification at the bottom of the page.
Post reply on HN