[Info-vax] Using VMS for a web server

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Sunday, 7 June 2015 04:28:10 UTC+1, 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.

Beautifully put.

Over here, the bit about "doing it right" vs "doing it shiny" is
exemplified by London's Millenium Bridge. Very shiny on paper (or
modern equivalent), functional disaster in the real world, slightly
embarrassing for a country that used to have a world leading bridge
design industry, cost a small fortune to fix. But shiny. 

If people regularly designed bridges the way that people regularly
design complex computer systems...