There are a number of great comments here, but one of the best things I've seen from "fresh eyes" is identifying entrenched waste.
In manufacturing, eliminating waste/process improvements are always being looked at and often encouraged. The vast majority of manufacturing efforts require bespoke solutions (material handling, planning, quality, etc.), that's most likely why it's hard to find "common solutions". Many get tied into common systems, but it's often a "we made it work" condition and not seamless. So walk the floor, observe what's bespoke, observe what could be common and integrated, then explore those items.
ERP software seems to be the largest contributor in this space. I would look at modern solutions as much as you can. Many companies are entrenched in SAP and Epicor (QAD, Netsuite, etc.) which try to do everything and often don't do anything really well. Start there, but there may be more obvious areas to look at in your observation. Good luck!
I cannot agree more with this comment. CAD software is still so dominated by proprietary systems that maintain their own version control and feature set. And since all the major players offer a "suite" of tools, there's no incentive to seamlessly interact between products. You spend so much time trying to figure out how you are going work with importing a neutral export (meaning you've dissected the data from its version control), and maintaining any data accuracy.
I was honestly extremely hopeful when OnShape hit the market. Granted it was still a proprietary tool, but felt it had the tooling and integrations to bring CAD systems into the "modern era". Then they crippled their free offering, removing it's discrimination from tools like Fusion. And now with their purchase by PTC, I have no hope in it making any further waves in the CAD space.
It's obvious to anyone with exposure to software that the whole industry is 25 years behind in version control. It exists in large companies, but as a JIRA or SAP like system, usually with engineers fighting for the right to work with local files. It does not exist as standard industry practice that everyone follows.
I'm sure many people on HN have experience meeting a one-person self-taught software team in a small company that developed their own version control system called "copying folders". In mechanical CAD, half of the industry is at that level, but it's even worse because your shard libraries may be updated irreversibly and without notification when you don't intend, or not updated when you intend, depending on such factors as the order in which you loaded your projects.
I was sad enough that GrabCAD was purchased by Stratasys, but at least it's plausible that it exists for a while. I didn't know OnShape was purchased by PTC. I was also really hopeful and play around with it about once a year. It's always missing something I need, but was getting close, and some of the features they add are really innovative. They are also honest about what features are missing.
On the other hand, I still have a soft spot for Pro-E since it was my first MCAD package and to this day miss some of its parametric features (but certainly not its interface).
Apple just finished closing down (pretty sure) all their stores in the East District of TX so all these suits can no longer be filed there. Might help conclude a bunch of these...or not...it's a ton of money we're talking about.
I agree that it's worth looking at all public structures of font selection as well. The Highway department is in this right now. Highway Gothic is old an difficult to read, yet instead of a public domain free to use sign font, they are battling the use of Clearview which comes with a cost because it has a copyright attached to it.
There are multiple needs here and it seems the only action comes from the "sexy" side of things.
Yes not to mention the thousands of companies that have to deal with Ex/Im laws that cannot move to "the cloud". Not to mention the CIOs that will have to tell there lawyers that all there IP is leaving the network...but don't worry, it's still secure. The list goes on.
The other thing is the writer seems overwhelmingly fond of Pure Storage...until they are bought by one of his Walking Dead. Instead of calling these companies "Walking Dead", he should be highlighting more the approach Microsoft has done. What Dell/EMC, IBM, Cisco, HP, and more will start to see is that they can operate in both worlds. Amazon will never turn over there stack to a company so that it can operate inside that companies physical control, but the listed companies (like Microsoft) can make there stacks available "in the cloud" and palpable to the public furthering there market.
To me, whereas Amazon and the like have plenty of growth ahead of them, these "Walking Dead" have higher ceilings although it will take quite a bit of inertial change. I can see IBM already working and heading in that direction. If they (like Microsoft) become another success story, it will be hard for the others to ignore that strategy.
But the author got his clicks and his eyes...so I'm sure we'll see of this.
So they are saying that they can never get a NSL to turn over information, but where are these servers? Who has the keys to the door of the server room?
So maybe they don't get the NSL, but the people/group/company that is handling the servers might. This seems disingenuous. I could be wrong, but it feels like they are making claims that will dupe people into their service because they feel safe.
> There are of course other avenues available to obtain your data. Our colocation providers could be compelled to give physical access to our servers. Network capturing devices could be installed. And in the worst case an attacker could simply force their way into the datacentre and physically remove our servers.
Agreed, he raises no convincing point. And yes, if you are in a very traumatic accident the helmet is only going to do so much...and like you said the one thing it does is the one thing you cannot live without.
You can go on living without a leg/arm/spleen but a brain injury...
In manufacturing, eliminating waste/process improvements are always being looked at and often encouraged. The vast majority of manufacturing efforts require bespoke solutions (material handling, planning, quality, etc.), that's most likely why it's hard to find "common solutions". Many get tied into common systems, but it's often a "we made it work" condition and not seamless. So walk the floor, observe what's bespoke, observe what could be common and integrated, then explore those items.
ERP software seems to be the largest contributor in this space. I would look at modern solutions as much as you can. Many companies are entrenched in SAP and Epicor (QAD, Netsuite, etc.) which try to do everything and often don't do anything really well. Start there, but there may be more obvious areas to look at in your observation. Good luck!