3 ms·

> If you click on the username you will see that this person tried the same post 7 month ago I bang this particular drum quite loudly, for sure. However if you

• jhoelzel 3y ago
  While your concerns about the term "DevOps" are certainly valid, I'd like to offer a tiny counter-perspective that I think could offer some clarity. Firstly, the idea that "DevOps" is rewriting history doesn't hold up well when you consider the natural progression of any industry. Concepts and terms evolve over time. It's not rewriting history, it's a sign of the industry maturing. Speech is in flux all the time, otherwise this post would also read like Shakespeare. Second, the lack of a universal definition isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it might be a strength. It allows different organizations to interpret and apply the principles of DevOps in a way that best fits their specific needs. This flexibility can actually drive innovation. Or differently set, the meaning is assigned and not a given. As a freelancer in the space I get a lot of different offers under the same umbrella, but the truth is that i can simply help in a lot of areas by definition. Third, just because the originator of the term can't pin down a solid definition doesn't necessarily discredit it. It's common in tech for concepts to outgrow their original definitions as they are applied in new contexts and grow in scope. Your point about DevOps teams or engineers signifying failure is also too black and white, in my opinion. The title is less important than the actual practices and methodologies being implemented. Whether we call them DevOps engineers or agyle sysadmins is secondary to their contribution to the project. That is what the job description is for. However, calling this entire branch of IT "bullshit", will remain a marketing scheme for your underlying investment, no matter how much you now try to blame it upon technicality.
  • dijit 3y ago
    > Firstly, the idea that "DevOps" is rewriting history doesn't hold up well when you consider the natural progression of any industry. Concepts and terms evolve over time. It's not rewriting history, it's a sign of the industry maturing. Speech is in flux all the time, otherwise this post would also read like Shakespeare. Yet words like "bridge", "ceiling" and "concrete" are unchanged for a century. Evolution is fine, but we're chocking on our own spit trying to be "next" and "hip" and whatever. So much silly useless effort, but this is worse anyway because we went from more formalised and easy to understand terms to a fuzzy one which nobody had clearly defined. > Second, the lack of a universal definition isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it might be a strength. It allows different organizations to interpret and apply the principles of DevOps in a way that best fits their specific needs. This flexibility can actually drive innovation. Or differently set, the meaning is assigned and not a given. As a freelancer in the space I get a lot of different offers under the same umbrella, but the truth is that i can simply help in a lot of areas by definition. Sorry, no this is a super bad thing, you don't get to choose what "yes" means given a concrete context. This is not materially different. If you have a different job: it should be called as such. > Third, just because the originator of the term can't pin down a solid definition doesn't necessarily discredit it. It's common in tech for concepts to outgrow their original definitions as they are applied in new contexts and grow in scope. He never even supplied a definition, so we are stuck in this loop of defining it constantly. And our definitions almost never match. Lets just let it die. Almost as much time wasted as with timezones. > Your point about DevOps teams or engineers signifying failure is also too black and white, in my opinion. The title is less important than the actual practices and methodologies being implemented. Whether we call them DevOps engineers or agyle sysadmins is secondary to their contribution to the project. That is what the job description is for. I'm just pointing out that many people disagree on the definition, so many will just claim outright that you're doing it wrong. I agree that actions are better than definitions, I'd rather have shitty definitions and functional actions; however that's a false dichotomy, we can have both. > However, calling this entire branch of IT "bullshit", will remain a marketing scheme for your underlying investment, no matter how much you now try to blame it upon technicality. I am invested in nothing, I have no financial or even sunk-cost gain from taking this particular fight, so you're concretely mistaken. FWIW, I am not the original author of the article; mine is here and was written a year earlier: https://blog.dijit.sh/devops-confusion-and-frustration https://blog.dijit.sh/devops-confusion-and-frustration