alt Hacker NewsThe customer's in-house developers raised their hackles and had reservations about using the product, even though the customer's in-house solutions were terrible, because the customer's in-house developers wanted to build it themselves. I'm not sure if the article wasn't well worded and you misunderstood, or if it's me who doesn't see the irony.
Replies
JackFr • last Wednesday at 1:41 PM
One of the reservations the customer likely had is "will this company be around in X years?" The inferior home-grown product will continue to be supported.
➕ show 1 reply
eppp • last Wednesday at 1:39 PM
Perhaps they didn't want to build it themselves and took into account the other risks like the company folding?
➕ show 1 reply
guappa • last Thursday at 7:27 AM
That's one point of view. Maybe from the other side the worst one wasn't the in-house solution.
The irony is that a valid reason for in-house developers to not want to use an external product is concern about the long term support availabilty for that external project. You could make a case that this product shutting down is proof the in-house developers were right not to trust it.
I don't think that's totally fair in this case, since it seems they open sourced their software. But also, in general, I think NIH syndrom gets a bad rap. Sometimes a "worse" solution you control really is more reasonable compared to a technically superior solution made by an external company.