▲ 163 ▼ Atlassian goes cloud-only, customers face integration issues (www.theregister.com) submitted 10 months ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] egrets@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 child) Yeah, but it's OpEx, so it's just imaginary expenditure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] boatswain@infosec.pub 2 points 10 months ago (3 children) I've heard this before but I still can't wrap my head around why some money counts and some doesn't permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Flisty@mstdn.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 child) @boatswain @egrets same as firing staff only to use more expensive contractors to do the same job, or selling a building you own only to rent the same building from someone else. It doesn't come from the same budget line, because it's lower risk, in the sense that you could in theory just stop paying the money if your strategy/situation changes, and you won't have ongoing expenses just from "owning" the thing. In reality you're usually still locked in, just paying more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] boatswain@infosec.pub 1 point 10 months ago Still seems like voodoo to me permalink fedilink source parent [–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago Creative business accounting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 10 months ago Because it's someone else's fault. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 2 points 10 months ago (3 children) I've heard this before but I still can't wrap my head around why some money counts and some doesn't permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Flisty@mstdn.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 child) @boatswain @egrets same as firing staff only to use more expensive contractors to do the same job, or selling a building you own only to rent the same building from someone else. It doesn't come from the same budget line, because it's lower risk, in the sense that you could in theory just stop paying the money if your strategy/situation changes, and you won't have ongoing expenses just from "owning" the thing. In reality you're usually still locked in, just paying more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] boatswain@infosec.pub 1 point 10 months ago Still seems like voodoo to me permalink fedilink source parent [–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago Creative business accounting. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 10 months ago Because it's someone else's fault. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flisty@mstdn.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 child) @boatswain @egrets same as firing staff only to use more expensive contractors to do the same job, or selling a building you own only to rent the same building from someone else. It doesn't come from the same budget line, because it's lower risk, in the sense that you could in theory just stop paying the money if your strategy/situation changes, and you won't have ongoing expenses just from "owning" the thing. In reality you're usually still locked in, just paying more. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] boatswain@infosec.pub 1 point 10 months ago Still seems like voodoo to me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] boatswain@infosec.pub 1 point 10 months ago Still seems like voodoo to me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago Creative business accounting. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 point 10 months ago Because it's someone else's fault. permalink fedilink source parent