3 ms·
I think it boils down to the fact that infrastructure for projects (no matter the size) is usually a second class citizen at best. Either no one is eager to ca
by wink 8y ago
I think it boils down to the fact that infrastructure for projects (no matter the size) is usually a second class citizen at best.
Either no one is eager to care for it, or the people who are actually focused on developing the software run it because they need to, or worst case - no contributor is trusted enough to handle infrastructure work, with access being given even more sparsely than commit rights to the whole software. Which is fine by itself, but there are so many (big) projects where infra is kind of terrible because 3 out 100 people involved are doing all the work. Or don't.
- proy24 8y agoIt's just a problem with the industry that's like "let's just get something out there and achieve product market first..will worry about infra and security later" that later is just pushed into a backlog and forgotten.
- dijit 8y agoAs a classically trained sysadmin I've seen this trend going for the last decade. Some developers seem to be pushing that ops shouldn't exist any longer or should be outsourced to google (who don't hire ops) or amazon (who do). Managers see this trend and think that hiring only developers is a good way to save costs and do things the "new way". Traditional ops roles are indeed not as required but security/process/reliability focused people should not be the same people who write new features. They're in contradiction of each other often. If you're a developer who thinks ops shouldn't exist any longer consider this: I can write software and design websites as a sysadmin, does that mean I don't need you now, or that I know everything you do? I argue that it doesn't. A focus on automation is one thing but defenestrating the notion of operations/SRE is going to net you a bad time.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]