4 ms·

The author's approach presupposes a devops "person" (side note: if you have a person in charge of ops, that person is an ops person, not a "devops" person, as d

The author's approach presupposes a devops "person" (side note: if you have a person in charge of ops, that person is an ops person, not a "devops" person, as devops is a process; either your org is on it or they aren't). If you want developers to launch to production with any degree of reliability, you're going to need either a lot of tooling support for your specific workflow, or you're going to use docker and a significant degree of creative blindness. The fat binary approach works great if you can build a fat binary - python and node are nearly diametrically opposed to compiled binaries in general, much less ones that include a list of dependencies. The docker image is the fat binary that our toolchain is set up to build and run.

matteuan 7y ago
You are assuming that developers have enough knowledge of Docker to deploy in production confidently. Why is it different for other ops skills? What "degree of reliability" does Docker adds over bash, for example?
- freeone3000 7y ago
  It adds full environment reproducability. Essentially, "it works on my machine" -- "then we'll ship your machine". Nothing about docker in particular is meaningful, if they shipped VM images this would be identical, but docker streamlines creation and management of the entire OS image. It eliminates all differences between the developer's laptop and the production server.
forgottenpass 7y ago
>that person is an ops person, not a "devops" person, as devops is a process; either your org is on it or they aren't "devops" has made the same slide to meaninglessness as "agile." At one point they might have meant something about the philosophy of getting a job done. They don't anymore. They're buzzwords for a bunch of mutually-incomparable ideas, and as long as we pretend there is still meat in the concepts we're just lending buzzwords credibility. "devops" is a verbal pyrbar for whatever change management already wanted to make, and shouldn't be seen as much more than a string of characters to get a resume through a regular expression.
judge2020 7y ago
> side note I imagine a devops person as someone who manages IDE licenses and possibly the company's docker registry and SCM server.

matteuan 7y ago

You are assuming that developers have enough knowledge of Docker to deploy in production confidently. Why is it different for other ops skills? What "degree of reliability" does Docker adds over bash, for example?

freeone3000 7y ago
It adds full environment reproducability. Essentially, "it works on my machine" -- "then we'll ship your machine". Nothing about docker in particular is meaningful, if they shipped VM images this would be identical, but docker streamlines creation and management of the entire OS image. It eliminates all differences between the developer's laptop and the production server.

forgottenpass 7y ago

>that person is an ops person, not a "devops" person, as devops is a process; either your org is on it or they aren't "devops" has made the same slide to meaninglessness as "agile." At one point they might have meant something about the philosophy of getting a job done. They don't anymore. They're buzzwords for a bunch of mutually-incomparable ideas, and as long as we pretend there is still meat in the concepts we're just lending buzzwords credibility. "devops" is a verbal pyrbar for whatever change management already wanted to make, and shouldn't be seen as much more than a string of characters to get a resume through a regular expression.

judge2020 7y ago

> side note I imagine a devops person as someone who manages IDE licenses and possibly the company's docker registry and SCM server.