3 ms·

There is nothing political to say "If Kubernetes is good for DoD weapon* systems, it is definitely good enough for your business!". I'm sure that every softwar

by galkk 3y ago

There is nothing political to say "If Kubernetes is good for DoD weapon* systems, it is definitely good enough for your business!". I'm sure that every software engineer can think about complexities that DoD experience in their work with software. Some are highly technical in hard environments and with reliability requirements * corrected, based on comment below

jzb 3y ago
I disagree. First, you dropped the word “weapons.” “DoD systems” sounds neutral, could be benign personnel systems. DoD weapons systems isn’t neutral, and it is political. Those systems are used to enforce U.S. policy, via combat. That’s the status quo, which may not feel “political” if you’re supportive of U.S. policy and/or don’t think about the ramifications, but it is very political. If you’re not okay with how the U.S. uses its military, its definitely political. To some that message reads as “if it’s good enough to use to kill people, it’s good enough for your business.”
- galkk 3y ago
  Corrected, but missing word was honest mistake and not intentional. I still believe that point stands - as a software engineer I can see a lot of technical challenges in weapon systems too. And this is just from thinking about *potential* things, as in system design interview. Reality, I'm sure, is much more complicated and hard. Some will find offense in every word one can say, it doesn't mean that they're right. Because to some that message may mean "If it's good enough to use to save people, it's good enough for your business". Are they less right?
  - jzb 3y ago
    There were two assertions in the original, I was not responding about the complexity piece. Sure, DoD requirements are no doubt fascinating and complex. What I was responding to was the assertion that "there is nothing political to say..." As I said, the topic is political. Trying to move from "political" to "offensive" (and omitting "weapons") suggests to me that you're not seeing this as a political issue because you're just seeing this as "normal" from your POV. That doesn't make it not political.

by galkk 3y ago

jzb 3y ago

I disagree. First, you dropped the word “weapons.” “DoD systems” sounds neutral, could be benign personnel systems. DoD weapons systems isn’t neutral, and it is political. Those systems are used to enforce U.S. policy, via combat. That’s the status quo, which may not feel “political” if you’re supportive of U.S. policy and/or don’t think about the ramifications, but it is very political. If you’re not okay with how the U.S. uses its military, its definitely political. To some that message reads as “if it’s good enough to use to kill people, it’s good enough for your business.”

galkk 3y ago
Corrected, but missing word was honest mistake and not intentional. I still believe that point stands - as a software engineer I can see a lot of technical challenges in weapon systems too. And this is just from thinking about *potential* things, as in system design interview. Reality, I'm sure, is much more complicated and hard. Some will find offense in every word one can say, it doesn't mean that they're right. Because to some that message may mean "If it's good enough to use to save people, it's good enough for your business". Are they less right?
- jzb 3y ago
  There were two assertions in the original, I was not responding about the complexity piece. Sure, DoD requirements are no doubt fascinating and complex. What I was responding to was the assertion that "there is nothing political to say..." As I said, the topic is political. Trying to move from "political" to "offensive" (and omitting "weapons") suggests to me that you're not seeing this as a political issue because you're just seeing this as "normal" from your POV. That doesn't make it not political.