Re:Acquisition and maintenance of a band of minions
by philwelch on Sunday June 16, 2013 @01:16PM
(#5889100)
IANAG but at large companies like Google, you're bound to see proprietary internal systems for handling a lot of problems like remote services, package management, deployment, load balancing, etc. Part of that is massive scale. Another part is that, while small generic programs and libraries do well in the wild, having a standardized, integrated system is more cost-effective inside a large business.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Acquisition and maintenance of a band of minions
by michaelt on Sunday June 16, 2013 @03:40PM
(#5889610)
I, too, ANAG but I've heard 20% time projects only count towards performance reviews if they make it into production.
That could easily create a bias towards using things made in 20% time in preference to industry-standard tooling.
In reality I assume it's a combination of the two: Sometimes the internal tools really are the best for Google's specific needs; other times there's probably Not Invented Here Syndrome at work, same as anywhere else.
Re:Acquisition and maintenance of a band of minions
by spankalee on Sunday June 16, 2013 @08:40PM
(#5890743)
There's no such rule.
Re:Acquisition and maintenance of a band of minions
by nostrademons on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:54AM
(#5891659)
No such rule, but you are generally judged on impact and not effort at Google. If your efforts don't make an impact, then they aren't going to be counted in your favor.
Re:Acquisition and maintenance of a band of minions
by philwelch on Monday June 17, 2013 @11:14AM
(#5893625)
Isn't that how the world works? Effort without impact is just wasted effort.
Re:Acquisition and maintenance of a band of minions
by nostrademons on Monday June 17, 2013 @05:13PM
(#5895996)
The real world, yes. In many institutions (eg. the public school system, most giant megacorps) you get points for showing up and putting in the appearance of effort even if you don't accomplish anything.