The matrix differentiates between the cost of making the switch from the likelihood that you'll have (or want) to make the switch. Things that have a low likelihood and a low cost shouldn't bother you much while the opposite end, the ones with high switching cost and a high chance of switch, are no good and should be addressed. On the other diagonal, you are taking your chances on those options that will cost you, but are unlikely to occur - that's where you'll want to buy some insurance, for example by limiting the scope of change or by padding your maintenance budget. You could also accept the risk - how often would you really need to migrate off Oracle onto DB2, or vice versa? Lastly, if switches are likely but cheap, you achieved agility - you embrace change and designed your system for low cost of executing it. Oddly, this quadrant often gets less attention than the top left despite many small changes adding up quickly. That's our poor decision making at work: the unlikely drama gets more attention because what if!
Up until last Friday, it seemed like HashiCorp had this balance just right. They did so by making most functionality open source, but reserving some functionality solely for their commercial products, such as Terraform Cloud and Terraform Enterprise. With this approach, the Terraform community grew, companies that used Terraform grew, and, of... See more
It's officially been 24 hours since the OpenAI DevDay announcements.
The leaks were true. The way we use ChatGPT is about to completely change.
Here are 12 shocking things people have already built (early access):