Thread

1. tencentshill · 1790104162 · focus · HN ↗

   Well that's a big one.

   Perhaps firing expertise and hiring incompetents wasn't a good idea.

   1. nateb2022 · 1790107107 · focus · HN ↗

      There's incompetence in every major company including Oracle. PeopleSoft isn't known for being the most modern or secure thing out there. Less reliance on 3rd party software like this will be a good thing going forward.

      1. lenerdenator · 1790108690 · focus · HN ↗

         That's assuming that the result of this will be to switch away from PeopleSoft.

         1. nateb2022 · 1790108957 · focus · HN ↗

            I think enterprise software in this vein used to have a quasi-monopoly due to the sheer work required to build software of its size (not enough engineers exist in the government to do so), and the difficulty for competitors to enter regulated markets and so pretty much 1-2 options to choose from.

            AI now makes it possible to build this kind of software in-house, offering a 2nd choice, though it'll only be as good as the standards of the teams using it. Only time can tell.

            1. sarchertech · 1790109552 · focus · HN ↗

               Enterprise software is complicated mostly because of number of customers it can support.

               Bespoke software can be orders of magnitude less complex. There are many reasons companies choose to use vendor solutions, but for large organizations it’s usually not “we literally can’t hire enough engineers to build it.”

               There are so many counter examples.

               1. 0cf8612b2e1e · 1790109963 · focus · HN ↗

                  Considering how bad most enterprise software is, I assumed the only real relevance was if the sales team ponied up some lavish perks to the right VP who only has to sign checks and never actually interact with the software.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.