alt Hacker NewsI'm sorry but this reads like AI slop. Or maybe it's not AI slop, it's just regular human-generated slop, but regardless: it's useless.
For one: it's intentionally completely unverifiable. Sure, maybe the writer's not brave enough to break their NDA by sharing names. But it's also convenient: nobody can ever poke holes in the story, or add their own context to it. The story just gets to live on its own and earn internet karma regardless of whether it's at all true.
For two: completely inconsistent. Let's take these two paragraphs:
> A few years earlier, a major public institution - let’s call it Agency A - was still running an ancient Exchange mail server. It hadn’t received security updates for ages, the anti-spam was completely ineffective, and the new regulations were clear: embrace Open Source solutions whenever possible.
> They had already received a proposal - expensive but seemingly reasonable - for a managed service, hosted by an external provider, built on an open source mail stack. The company offered a managed version with its own proprietary additions and enterprise support. The catch? The price was absurd, and Agency A already had solid infrastructure - reputable IP classes, redundant datacenters, everything working fine. We had built and maintained that environment for years, and it was still running perfectly.
So we have just learned in paragraph 1 that the current system is dated and full of security holes and missing features. In paragraph 2 we have learned that the current system's infrastructure is "solid" and "working fine". Can you really say the infrastructure is solid and working fine if it's preventing you from upgrading your Exchange mail server?
And let's take paragraph two: it says the proposal is "expensive but seemingly reasonable" and then one sentence later says "the catch? The price is absurd". How can the price be both "reasonable" and "absurd?"
Overall an annoying read.
Replies
> I'm sorry but this reads like AI slop. Or maybe it's not AI slop, it's just regular human-generated slop, but regardless: it's useless.
> For one: it's intentionally completely unverifiable. Sure, maybe the writer's not brave enough to break their NDA by sharing names. But it's also convenient: nobody can ever poke holes in the story, or add their own context to it. The story just gets to live on its own and earn internet karma regardless of whether it's at all true.
I’m not sure why this would be surprising: it’s a personal story shared on a blog, not an investigative article in a newspaper.
I also don’t think it helps calling everything “AI slop” these days only if one doesn’t like it for some reason.
Updating Exchange would have meant spending a lot on new licenses to upgrade to a new release, and public administrations were encouraged to seek open-source solutions. The underlying server infrastructure was solid, but the VM with Exchange was now old. The entire setup would have needed to be redone. The second paragraph, on the other hand, says that the quote was "acceptable" for them, knowing the average costs for that service. But it was also very high, even in the opinion of the IT manager.
This isn't AI slop. These are real-life experiences. The goal is to raise awareness that open source doesn't always and necessarily mean freedom: lock-in exists.
Yep, there's at least a dozen "AI writing" red flags across the text.
Low coherence sentence to sentence, stray emdashes, loads of those LLM-was-trying-too-hard writing turns.
If it wasn't written by an AI entirely, then at least it was edited to shit by one.
I agree it's not written in the clearest way, nor verifiable (though Stefano Marinelli does seem to be a semi-public figure in the online IT community, so it's not some anonymous blog).
>So we have just learned in paragraph 1 that the current system is dated and full of security holes and missing features. In paragraph 2 we have learned that the current system's infrastructure is "solid" and "working fine".
This confused me too, until I realized that he probably meant that his company set up the hardware infrastructure ("reputable IP classes, redundant datacenters"), but doesn't manage the software. Otherwise, why shred your own credibility from the first sentence by crapping on the "ancient," "insecure," and "ineffective" Exchange server?
>How can the price be both "reasonable" and "absurd?"
Agreed, this part makes no sense.