5 ms·

There seems to be an increasing disconnect between the marketing value of a term ("DevOps") and what we're actually supposed to be doing, which might best be de

There seems to be an increasing disconnect between the marketing value of a term ("DevOps") and what we're actually supposed to be doing, which might best be described as blameless accountability. Even in information security it basically revolves around the same things before you can even do any sensible work and improvements to processes. - Know what you have - Know where it is - Know what it is doing - Know what it is supposed to be doing If you don't have any of those pieces you're just guessing and hoping for the best. For software that might be "know what services you are building, know where you're running them, know how they are doing, know how they are supposed to be doing". But if we call that "DevOps" is suddenly marketable.

lazide 4y ago
The issue of course is those things are hard.
- oneplane 4y ago
  They are only hard if they don't get the same priority and attention you'd see in regulated situations. Replace software or information security with "bars of gold" and suddenly it's not so hard. That's because marketing why you should know the what/where/how/why of your gold to business decision makers is apparently much more palatable than abstract concepts found in IT, even if the value is the same. If you get the resources (including time, money and manpower) do just do it, it can be done. But you usually don't get all three (and maybe not even one), and therefore you're stuck with a task that cannot be executed well.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Did general aviation become cheaper or more available to folks when it got more heavily regulated? Fatality rates dropped, but it basically froze the technology and capability into the late 70’s/early 80’s and locked in just a few companies. The overall number of people working in that industry is tiny now. It’s almost a complete dead end. It’s the classic trade off - cheaper, better, faster. Pick any 2 if you’re lucky. Most only get to pick 1.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      Yep, and that is generally also why IT is the way it currently is. Most projects aren't all that complex (in business logic terms), it's mostly CRUD interfaces and a fancy viewer for the end users anyway. But industries that are still on mainframes are almost completely the opposite where every single element is tagged, catalogued, tested, described and traceable at any point in time. With a price, rigidity and lead time to match, of course. On one hand we don't all want to buy mainframes, on the other hand, doing it as cheap and unmeasured as possible makes everything flakey, demanding on individuals to keep it running, insecure, and opaque to everyone involved. Too bad there isn't really any middle ground, it's almost like it's either "pretend to be a mainframe" or "do it as cheap as possible". Regarding the aviation analogy: it definitely doesn't become cheaper due to regulation (it did become cheaper due to subsidies), but I'd rather have a system that's regulated (or forced) into safety than having it be optional and left to a sociopath (i.e. a for-profit publicly traded company - all the benefits of pretending to be a person but none of the responsibilities or limits to govern it - except the law and regulation).
aidenn0 4y ago
Isn't that list just "Ops" ?
- oneplane 4y ago
  No, "Ops" is legacy siloing of departments and by extension, tasks. Imagine driving a car, but it takes one person to do the steering and another person to do throttling. Seems pretty dumb, doesn't it?
  - elcapitan 4y ago
    On larger vehicles like ships, you have exactly that "legacy siloing" of responsibilities. You don't need the person responsible for navigation and steering run down into the engine room or to the rudder to check whether everything works as expected there.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      True, but the analogy for a ship would be: the person cleaning the deck isn't allowed to get his own bucket, that's the bucket operator's job. Pretty silly again.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Late reply, but, to me the difference between Ops and DevOps is whether or not you need to contact IT to get your original list of: - Know what you have - Know where it is - Know what it is doing - Know what it is supposed to be doing

lazide 4y ago

The issue of course is those things are hard.

oneplane 4y ago
They are only hard if they don't get the same priority and attention you'd see in regulated situations. Replace software or information security with "bars of gold" and suddenly it's not so hard. That's because marketing why you should know the what/where/how/why of your gold to business decision makers is apparently much more palatable than abstract concepts found in IT, even if the value is the same. If you get the resources (including time, money and manpower) do just do it, it can be done. But you usually don't get all three (and maybe not even one), and therefore you're stuck with a task that cannot be executed well.
- lazide 4y ago
  Did general aviation become cheaper or more available to folks when it got more heavily regulated? Fatality rates dropped, but it basically froze the technology and capability into the late 70’s/early 80’s and locked in just a few companies. The overall number of people working in that industry is tiny now. It’s almost a complete dead end. It’s the classic trade off - cheaper, better, faster. Pick any 2 if you’re lucky. Most only get to pick 1.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    Yep, and that is generally also why IT is the way it currently is. Most projects aren't all that complex (in business logic terms), it's mostly CRUD interfaces and a fancy viewer for the end users anyway. But industries that are still on mainframes are almost completely the opposite where every single element is tagged, catalogued, tested, described and traceable at any point in time. With a price, rigidity and lead time to match, of course. On one hand we don't all want to buy mainframes, on the other hand, doing it as cheap and unmeasured as possible makes everything flakey, demanding on individuals to keep it running, insecure, and opaque to everyone involved. Too bad there isn't really any middle ground, it's almost like it's either "pretend to be a mainframe" or "do it as cheap as possible". Regarding the aviation analogy: it definitely doesn't become cheaper due to regulation (it did become cheaper due to subsidies), but I'd rather have a system that's regulated (or forced) into safety than having it be optional and left to a sociopath (i.e. a for-profit publicly traded company - all the benefits of pretending to be a person but none of the responsibilities or limits to govern it - except the law and regulation).

aidenn0 4y ago

Isn't that list just "Ops" ?

oneplane 4y ago
No, "Ops" is legacy siloing of departments and by extension, tasks. Imagine driving a car, but it takes one person to do the steering and another person to do throttling. Seems pretty dumb, doesn't it?
- elcapitan 4y ago
  On larger vehicles like ships, you have exactly that "legacy siloing" of responsibilities. You don't need the person responsible for navigation and steering run down into the engine room or to the rudder to check whether everything works as expected there.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    True, but the analogy for a ship would be: the person cleaning the deck isn't allowed to get his own bucket, that's the bucket operator's job. Pretty silly again.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Late reply, but, to me the difference between Ops and DevOps is whether or not you need to contact IT to get your original list of: - Know what you have - Know where it is - Know what it is doing - Know what it is supposed to be doing