Hacker News Reader

Comment by kfrzcode | Hacker News Reader

$50k-100k seems a bit high for a bugfix.... else I'm desperately undervaluing my worth in salary negotiations

Nope, the bugfix is only $50. The other $49950 is for knowing which line to change. (adapted from old joke from https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Percussive_Maintenance)

And in practice, it also "buys" you all of the other bug fixes and releases from helping to fund the developer. So while the bug itself might only take a day, the infrastructure around being in a position to do that takes much more time.

High for salary, yes. High for buying enterprise support on mission-critical software? Perhaps the value might be different.

I was about to comment that most customers might expect more support than a bugfix for a $100k support contract, then I remembered my last few interactions with enterprise software vendors.

If anything, it'd probably exceed expectations.

Good point - though I'd argue anything mission-critical should never rely on external SME contractors being hired to fix one-off bugs.. :shrug:

Enterprise support and "no badgering on ETAs" don't quite go together.

I want to live in the fantasy world some of you live in where you expect corporations to cut you a $100k check, no strings attached.

ETAs and individual bounties, I think, are different in a subtle way. ETAs require a strong organziation that can deliver such things. Piecemeal support to fix one bug does not.

Also, I've seen companies cut larger checks for sillier things with minimal conditions, so...

They'll probably lose much more than $100k on the bug impacting their systems.

It's not enterprise support, it's simply paying for priority and nobody would be forcing them to participate in this scheme anyway.

And yes, this would be the only voice they get in the development process. Why shouldn't it be? Apple's had a 12 year free ride so far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com