1. 14

  2. 3

    The way the industry deploys server side software is broken. Customer’s should be able to opt in to upgrades and continue running on any version of their choice, possibly running multiple concurrent versions.

    A/B tests are unethical except in very narrow well controlled scenarios.

    1. 14

      It’s frustrating to live on both sides of this opinion.

      1. 4

        continue running on any version of their choice


        Is there a point at which we can accept that an upgrade will be required to continue using the service? Otherwise, the support cost grows really fast.

        1. 3

          There are vendors that support this model for customers who are willing to pay what it costs to support this model.

        2. 2

          Every single server had to download this thing

          Wouldn’t one solution be to have a single node per location cluster as a ‘local distributor’ and have that download it, then have that roll it out to each of the local computers? Depends on your network architecture, I guess.

          1. 3

            Just make the downloader bittorrent-capable and the bandwidth side of the download issue should sort itself out pretty quickly. Doesn’t help with CPU cycles for decompression and I/O bandwidth for writing all that stuff to storage.

            It would have only hidden the real issue: That it was way too easy for a team to bypass the staggered roll-out, which exists not only to prevent gigabyte-sized downloads hogging resources, but also to find out about software issues while the impact is still limited.

          2. 1

            Saw this happen. In 2007, with a Windows Office install deployed to every computer on the network at the same time..