this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2940 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I have no idea why you're even bringing up OT. We're not talking about PLCs or scientific equipment here, we're talking about glorified web apps.
Web apps that need to be secure and highly available, for sure, but web apps all the same.
A point of pride sure, also a risk. Responding to incidents requires coverage. And the OT comparison was just more on the uptime requirements and redundancies than anything else.
It's no more a risk than throwing more developers at it when they're not needed.
“Too many devs“ can, and often is, a significant bottleneck in and of itself. The codebase may simply not be big enough to fit more.
Besides, I still don't see what all those additional engineers would actually be doing. "Responding to incidents" presupposes a large number of incidents. In other words, the assumption is that the application will be buggy, or insecure enough, that 30 engineers will not be enough to apply the duct tape. I stand by the claim that an application adhering to modern standards and practices will not have as many bugs or security breaches, and therefore 30 engineers sounds like a completely reasonable amount.