[Info-vax] Using VMS for a web server

[Dirk Munk]

David Froble wrote:
> Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2015-06-06 16:02:11 +0000, David Froble said:
>>
>>> So, what are we saying?  That there can be such a thing as "too good"?
>>
>> Yes, there is such a thing.  Over-designing some product is
>> comparatively easy.  If you miss your target market, you're in deep
>> trouble.
>
> But I don't think that that was the issue or question.  The question
> was, can you hit your target market so well that there are little to no
> problems, and your support people don't get much experience in solving
> the non-existent problems.
>
> Such a solution is not over designed, it is very well designed.
>
> For such a solution to be considered "bad" because it is well designed
> is distasteful to me, and things go much further downhill from there.
>
> Should we design out nuclear power stations so that they periodically
> throw out some radioactive gases, so we can keep the hazmet people on
> their toes?  That's in my opinion rather similar to tossing rocks at
> Jan-Erik's VMS based solution(s) that don't have problems.
>
>> If you're building a barn, then you'll find using trees are expensive
>> and heavy, you need a number of large trees, and constructing a
>> classic post-and-beam requires effort, skill and (lately) a ginormous
>> CNC mill. Using an engineered solution such as truss involves more
>> complex pieces, and trusses are prone to sudden failures in extreme
>> conditions, but trusses are cheaper, and you can use more of what
>> might have been a brace or just scrap wood within a post-and-beam
>> structure.  There are yet more expensive and better solutions than
>> using a post-and-beam design, too.  There's a market for post-and-beam
>> barns, but it's not nearly as big as that of the pole barn, or of the
>> ordinary commercial prefab construction that you can see getting
>> delivered to building sites by the truckload.  But I digress.
>
> Yes, you do, and I'll digress some more.
>
> I happen to have one of those post and beam barns.  I think replicating
> it would be very expensive, and for anything it could be used for,
> rather stupid.  It has those 12-14 inch square oak beams.  I'd really
> hate to pay for one of those today, let along the dozens in the barn.
>
> As for failures, one of the joints is pulling apart.  But that barn will
> most likely out-live me, even if the problem is not addressed.  The
> building is unbelievable.  I do plan on pulling it back together one of
> these days.  That's going to be fun.
>
> If I was smart, I'd disassemble the barn and find buyers for all the
> lumber.  With the proceeds I could probably put up several truss based
> buildings.  But the old barn does have "character".
>
>> Getting back to software, a well-run, existing production application
>> installation usually tries to get to at least a local minima of
>> whatever they're optimizing for (usually cost and effort, increasingly
>> based on data collection and analysis), and a major upgrade or a
>> replacement installation often looks at getting into whatever the
>> current global minima might be.
>>
>> Yes, there are vendors which target better-grade products — not
>> usually "too good" — and there can be profits here for the best of
>> those vendors.   But it's a whole lot of work and a whole lot of
>> investment to ensure that you're meeting and variously exceeding the
>> expectations of your customers.  Spend too much getting to "perfect",
>> and you'll likely lose your customers, too.  Tradeoffs.
>
> Sometimes it's not cost that is involved, it is good design.  Many times
> it doesn't cost more to do the job "right", and sometimes it cost less.

Very, very true indeed. In fact most of the time it is a matter of 
knowledge and experience. Once you have learned the trick so to speak, 
you only have to repeat it. It's all about insight, understanding, not 
about hours and hours of experimenting and testing every time.

Every hour you spend on doing things the right way, repays itself 
10-fold later on.