3 ms·
Isn't this just an example of automation? Other than sunk cost, by what argument is it reasonable that the sysadmin job should in any way deserve to be protecte
by tw1010 8y ago
Isn't this just an example of automation? Other than sunk cost, by what argument is it reasonable that the sysadmin job should in any way deserve to be protected or aught to continue to be a thing? To my ears containers sounds like they've kind of solved the problem.
- kazen44 8y agoHow have containers solved maintaining production systems? It's just moving the abstraction layer higher up the stack. Also, who will design and build security for these systems? Or care about low-level performance? A ton of dev's don't care about prod in my experience, and just want to ship shiny features. Containers and VM's are not very different from a deployment or maintance standpoint. The deployment strategies used with containers could be done with (lightweight) VM's a decade ago. (heck, jails have been used for nearly 25 years) Also, sysadmins have been automating stuff since forever. Without automation one inherently has a very unstable system.
- mcguire 8y agohttps://xkcd.com/908/ https://xkcd.com/908/
- johngalt 8y agoNo one is arguing that a sysadmin job should be protected. The article is more of a reminder that the sysadmin responsibilities don't disappear because we paper over them. Containers are a great tool, but they can trick people into thinking that certain things aren't a problem merely because they have been swept under the rug operationally. With that in mind, I don't see sysadmins going anywhere soon. Every layer of abstraction is supposed to 'eliminate sysadmins', but inevitably it becomes yet another system that someone needs to audit and maintain.