How much of the justification for SaaS really boils down to "We have no idea how to administer Linux systems and we can't/won't hire anyone who does?"

@infoseclogger This is confusing, because generally businesses want to capitalize anything they can, but this is a clear reversal of that convention.

@infoseclogger I can see that rationale, although TCO for cloud services, even SaaS rather than IaaS, tends to make that math not math. But that's assuming there is engineering talent in the house. If not, well, it's the same thing as outsourcing any other skill, innit?

@tw000 Ah geez, that makes sense. I was mostly thinking about this from a software consumer perspective, but I can definitely see it from a producer one as well.

@infoseclogger As I understand it, the "magic" is in not paying someone a salary and benefits. That outstrips the value of increasing the company's total capital asset value.

@mttaggart @mos_8502 I wish it was that simple, but some of it is that SaaS can concentrate expertise and develop better software than non-SaaS can, because of scale and focus. I feel this extremely vividly with webmail; there is 0% chance that my (large!) university could develop a webmail environment half as good as the big ones, never mind their spam filtering. We don't have the money to pay the amount and quality of developers that would be needed, if we could even attract their attention.

@cks @mos_8502 That's a really good example of where you'd want a service! I think as you move closer to specific business operations, the value proposition diminishes.

@mttaggart This was literally the argument used for a previous organization I worked at when they moved from fast dedicated onprem gear to slow cloud services. They weren't even hiding it.

The internet being what it is, I see some readings of this as an absolutist stance against SaaS. Nope! There are lots of reasonable uses of services rather than assets. However, an allergy to owned tools, even when the control over the tool would be an object benefit to the org, is a convention that I believe has done more harm than good.

@mttaggart Hiring is hard though, esp for SMBs. And at that level you are proper f'd if the guy says bye after a year for whatever reason. SaaS/cloud is more reliable than that.

@buherator I think that's right and compatible with my point.

@mttaggart I thought the "can't be bothered" needs a bit more nuance, that's all

@buherator Probably too glib, yeah. But as orgs get bigger, the "hiring is hard" argument weakens

@paul_ipv6 @mttaggart I am seeing a lot of this is "we have no idea how to install and maintain infrastructure anymore, and we cycle through IT/infrastructure people because we consider they are commodity, so we better not put our critical systems on that stuff"

@ai6yr @paul_ipv6 Orgs not investing in IT staff -> constant churn -> increased operational cost and vendor lock-in.

Welp, nothing to be done I guess!

@mttaggart 0% in the case of organisations using shared services. It's also not simply a matter of reluctance to hire staff for many.

Time zone coverage, availability, cost and quality of staff as well as replaceability matter. It's a hell of a lot easier to sign a contract with an SLA than to manage all the variables that go far beyond staffing - spare parts, electricity etc are very different propositions in large parts of the world than in the US or Europe.

@samueljohnson Very good points well-taken!

@mttaggart can I just say how much I'm loving all the very polite disagreements and the adding and appreciating of nuance going on here.

@subtl Turns out it's possible on social media!