THE_NEW_RULES

PostgreSQL vs. The World: Is Boring the Ultimate Strategy?

Chapter 5: The Velocity Paradox

"PostgreSQL gained 517% market share while 47 NoSQL databases died. The lesson? Boring technologies that refuse to chase trends outlive everything that tries to disrupt them."

The book holds up PostgreSQL as the ultimate success story - slow, steady, boring, and dominant. But is this nostalgia for simpler times, or actual wisdom? Should we all just use boring technology?

Questions for Debate:

The Innovation Stagnation

  • Does celebrating "boring" technology discourage necessary innovation?
  • Are we using PostgreSQL's success to justify resistance to change?
  • What breakthroughs are we missing by playing it safe?

The Boring Privilege

  • Can new projects afford to be boring, or is that luxury for the established?
  • Does "boring" work for PostgreSQL because it had 30 years to mature?
  • Is this advice ("choose boring") helpful or harmful for startups?

The Selection Bias

  • Are we cherry-picking PostgreSQL while ignoring boring tech that died?
  • For every PostgreSQL, how many "boring" technologies became obsolete?
  • Is stability a cause of success or a result of it?

Share Your Experience:

The Boring Believers:

  • When has choosing boring technology paid off massively?
  • What "exciting" technology did you abandon for boring alternatives?
  • How do you resist the pressure to adopt the new shiny?

The Innovation Advocates:

  • When has boring technology held you back?
  • What competitive advantage comes from early adoption?
  • Can you share when taking a risk on new tech was worth it?

The Technical Reality:

The Use Case Question:

  • Is PostgreSQL really suitable for everything, or are we forcing it?
  • What problems genuinely need non-boring solutions?
  • When is boring actually the wrong choice?

The Evolution Argument:

  • Doesn't all innovative tech eventually become boring?
  • Was PostgreSQL boring when it started, or did it become boring?
  • Should we use boring tech or create the next boring tech?

The Performance Penalty:

  • What's the real cost of using "boring" when better exists?
  • Are we sacrificing performance for familiarity?
  • When does boring become a competitive disadvantage?

The Business Perspective:

The Hiring Advantage:

  • Is it easier to hire for boring technologies?
  • Do boring tech choices attract better or worse developers?
  • What signal does your tech stack send to candidates?

The Risk Assessment:

  • Is boring actually less risky, or differently risky?
  • What hidden risks exist in "proven" technologies?
  • Can you innovate in business while being boring in tech?

The Deeper Question:

The book argues that permanent problems deserve permanent solutions. But:

  • How do you identify truly permanent problems?
  • What if the problem changes but your boring solution doesn't?
  • Is permanence an illusion in technology?

The Career Angle:

For Developers:

  • Does specializing in boring tech limit or enhance your career?
  • Are PostgreSQL experts more or less valuable than blockchain developers?
  • Is boring sustainable for your motivation?

Your Position:

Is "choose boring technology" timeless wisdom or dangerous conservatism?

Should we optimize for stability or possibility?

Loading comments...