4 ms·

I disagree. DevOps was, and still is, extremely successful as a paradigm. Ignoring all of the other changes it brought into the industry (the fact that CI/CD i

by nunez 3y ago

I disagree. DevOps was, and still is, extremely successful as a paradigm. Ignoring all of the other changes it brought into the industry (the fact that CI/CD is table stakes now, for example), the single biggest thing that the DevOps culture instituted is the _idea_ that ops will need to code sometimes and engineers will need to _ops_ sometimes. Sure, many engineering orgs translated this into creating a "DevOps" team that writes YAML and manages The Jenkins™. (At these places, this is, sometimes, the ONLY way that breaking silos can be done due to complex organizational rules. Also, many of these teams are composed of ex-sysadmins AND ex-SWEs, i.e. the literal embodiment of DevOps.) But it also brought about operators managing high-complex software like Kubernetes in even the biggest of BigCos. This simply would not have happened without the DevOps mindset taking hold. For example, from the article: > For every operations person without software development skills, there are FORTY engineers without cloud operations skills. If you are going to build an internal platform, you’ll need experts with overlapping experience in both fields working together. Yes. That's literally what DevOps _is_.

dijit 3y ago
You've decided your definition, as many have. DevOps as written is not what you're saying; this has been mentioned at least 20 times in this thread. Sysadmins of yore were developers, they used perl and C and eventually ruby. Then there was a glut of sysadmins who couldn't code, then people acquired collective amnesia that sysadmins ever coded and invented a new term. The issue was that the term that they decided to use for this new breed of developer operations folk was the same word that was used for a methodology of breaking down siloes (having developers and operations as distinct entities but working together)[0] and the same word that was being used to describe sysadmins adopting Agile[1]. The annoying thing about the passage of time is that you look back and see only what has changed and may conclude that those changes are a result of paradigm shifts: you could be right, but sysadmins were using proto versions of common paradigms now: version control integrations used to be bad and fragmented, but it was ops pushing VCS; infrastructure as code via cfengine; cluster management with clustered ssh clients (cssh). I was there, I saw this. It's hard to differentiate between the slow march of progress of operations tooling (rebranded as devops tooling) and the fact that it might not actually be linked to devops as a methodology. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdOe18KhtT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdOe18KhtT4 [1]: https://www.knowledgehut.com/blog/devops/history-of-devops# https://www.knowledgehut.com/blog/devops/history-of-devops#
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nunez 3y ago
  > You've decided your definition, as many have. I really didn't. One of the definitive books on the DevOps ideology, _The Phoenix Project_, spends basically its entire plot driving home the point that DevOps is about dev and ops working together instead of ticket-passing. To your point, doing this requires going back in time a bit where sysadmins used to do a little bit of software and devs had to be a little bit of a sysadmin. (I blame Windows and the dot-com boom for the silos having been erected in the first place.)
  - dijit 3y ago
    Then you've chosen someone elses definition but it's not the origin I'm afraid. That book (I've read it twice, I think it's the only book I read twice honestly) is about the Toyota method and Agile and now that I think about it: warns against having "super stars" who do everything; which seems to be some other folks definition of devops xD
x86x87 3y ago
Everyone has their own definition. That is the core of the problem. Devops was supposed to be that there were no separate devs and separate ops. You should own everything from building it to running it. Now enter the snakeoil salesmen and the agile consultants. Throw the work devops around. It can mean whatever the fuck you want. Devs? They cannot be bothered with operating the service. Look at Google! SRE!!! Ops? Are the addibg any business value? I mean c'mon they are "running" the service! I know, i know: devops team! A team where we do devops stuff! And we'll replace the operations team (secret time: we will not. It's the same shit with a new name). Now we just wait for all that agile fairydust to kick in.

by nunez 3y ago

dijit 3y ago

You've decided your definition, as many have. DevOps as written is not what you're saying; this has been mentioned at least 20 times in this thread. Sysadmins of yore were developers, they used perl and C and eventually ruby. Then there was a glut of sysadmins who couldn't code, then people acquired collective amnesia that sysadmins ever coded and invented a new term. The issue was that the term that they decided to use for this new breed of developer operations folk was the same word that was used for a methodology of breaking down siloes (having developers and operations as distinct entities but working together)[0] and the same word that was being used to describe sysadmins adopting Agile[1]. The annoying thing about the passage of time is that you look back and see only what has changed and may conclude that those changes are a result of paradigm shifts: you could be right, but sysadmins were using proto versions of common paradigms now: version control integrations used to be bad and fragmented, but it was ops pushing VCS; infrastructure as code via cfengine; cluster management with clustered ssh clients (cssh). I was there, I saw this. It's hard to differentiate between the slow march of progress of operations tooling (rebranded as devops tooling) and the fact that it might not actually be linked to devops as a methodology. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdOe18KhtT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdOe18KhtT4 [1]: https://www.knowledgehut.com/blog/devops/history-of-devops# https://www.knowledgehut.com/blog/devops/history-of-devops#

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nunez 3y ago
> You've decided your definition, as many have. I really didn't. One of the definitive books on the DevOps ideology, _The Phoenix Project_, spends basically its entire plot driving home the point that DevOps is about dev and ops working together instead of ticket-passing. To your point, doing this requires going back in time a bit where sysadmins used to do a little bit of software and devs had to be a little bit of a sysadmin. (I blame Windows and the dot-com boom for the silos having been erected in the first place.)
- dijit 3y ago
  Then you've chosen someone elses definition but it's not the origin I'm afraid. That book (I've read it twice, I think it's the only book I read twice honestly) is about the Toyota method and Agile and now that I think about it: warns against having "super stars" who do everything; which seems to be some other folks definition of devops xD

x86x87 3y ago

Everyone has their own definition. That is the core of the problem. Devops was supposed to be that there were no separate devs and separate ops. You should own everything from building it to running it. Now enter the snakeoil salesmen and the agile consultants. Throw the work devops around. It can mean whatever the fuck you want. Devs? They cannot be bothered with operating the service. Look at Google! SRE!!! Ops? Are the addibg any business value? I mean c'mon they are "running" the service! I know, i know: devops team! A team where we do devops stuff! And we'll replace the operations team (secret time: we will not. It's the same shit with a new name). Now we just wait for all that agile fairydust to kick in.