>There is no difference between a "developer" and a "sysadmin" Ridiculous. Many developers have specialties that take years to gain proficiency. If there wer

>There is no difference between a "developer" and a "sysadmin" Ridiculous. Many developers have specialties that take years to gain proficiency. If there were no difference we could just replace a math PhD doing computer graphics with a sysadmin. Sometimes it's possible, but the blanket statement does not hold up. >I would be a bad developer if I did not understand how the systems my code runs on work I agree, but so what? Becoming a sysadmin is not the only way to do that. You shouldn't confuse what you've seen work, with being the only way something can work. >[your] mindset is why "devops engineers" get hired and very often end up being burnt at both ends You’re reading way too much into this. I never said a sysadmin rotation couldn't be helpful for some. I said devs don't necessarily have to do it to be great at their jobs. I wouldn't pull a dev who was, in the zone so to speak, being highly productive into a sysadmin role misguidedly thinking it would have no impact on delivery. >[sysadmins are] able to solve the problems that the incurious developer cannot I never implied I wanted “incurious” devs who couldn't solve problems to the extent they needed a “savior” as you put it. Maybe you are projecting your past experiences onto others based on overzealous inference? I didn't say what you suggested, and I don't believe it. > please excise the word "fallacious" from your vocabulary What are you talking about? The definition is “based on a mistaken belief”. I claim the argument that devs cannot understand scale out architecture without being a sysadmin is based on a mistaken belief. Why are you so against that word?