3 ms·

I guess that would be great, if developers had any kind of UNIX background. These days kids grow up on an Xbox until they get their first Mac. Seldom do I mee

by alrs 12y ago

I guess that would be great, if developers had any kind of UNIX background. These days kids grow up on an Xbox until they get their first Mac. Seldom do I meet a developer who has run a headless Linux box, understands syslog, understands the filesystem hierarchy, has packaged software, etc. The 1995-2005 definition of ops was "dudes who insert the CDROM and click through the EULAs." That kind of job doesn't really exist anymore, at least not in startup space. If the low-skill gamers-with-dayjobs were still running ops, and if comp sci programs still had people working from shell accounts on VT100s this kind of thing might make sense, but those people are long gone. Having people who don't understand UNIX tossing read-only bundles of broken over the wall to the people who do understand UNIX and distributed systems doesn't make a ton of sense. In case anyone missed it, I have no problem with Docker. I encourage automated deployment.

parasubvert 12y ago
"I guess that would be great, if developers had any kind of UNIX background." Pretty common, even in the enterprise, unless you're dealing with .NET developers. "those people are long gone" Not in the enterprise. The startup space isn't where the money is for things like Cloud Foundry or OpenShift or Docker. In the enterprise, usually the development team is the one to tell the ops team exactly how to install & configure the software, or have to produce a 200 page build guide with screen shots. In these environments (almost every large telecom and retail bank, for example, or the majority of outsourced EDS/IBM/Infosys/TCS organizations) ops has almost no critical thinking capability beyond a handful of "premier support" folks and "architects". I am not talking about the individuals - many of them are trying as best they can given their background. I'm talking about the way they're organized. IBM organizes their strategic outsourcing teams, for example, in teams of about 100, with 5 to 10 senior-intermediate technical leads (they know syslog, kernel modules, TCP/IP, scripting, etc.), 20-30 intermediate technical leads (they know how to do general sysadmin tasks but don't really understand how to admin storage, the kernel or TCP/IP deeply ), and 60-80 freshers that barely can spell grep. There are exceptions, but this is often is by design to keep the costs down. IBM earns about $26. Billion. Dollars. in revenue doing this. Multiply that by 5x across the rest of the outsourcers. Multiply it again by 15x to cover the in-sourced shops across the world. This is an area where software is definitely eating an industry. Docker's target is for teams where (a) the devs do the work anyway, ops just sits there staring blankly on conference calls, perhaps operating a keyboard if you're lucky (80% of the enterprise IT shops on earth). So, route around them and only retain those who know what they're doing. or (b) the ops guys are devs to begin with as they've automated the shit out of everything (Netflix, Google, Startups)

by alrs 12y ago

parasubvert 12y ago

"I guess that would be great, if developers had any kind of UNIX background." Pretty common, even in the enterprise, unless you're dealing with .NET developers. "those people are long gone" Not in the enterprise. The startup space isn't where the money is for things like Cloud Foundry or OpenShift or Docker. In the enterprise, usually the development team is the one to tell the ops team exactly how to install & configure the software, or have to produce a 200 page build guide with screen shots. In these environments (almost every large telecom and retail bank, for example, or the majority of outsourced EDS/IBM/Infosys/TCS organizations) ops has almost no critical thinking capability beyond a handful of "premier support" folks and "architects". I am not talking about the individuals - many of them are trying as best they can given their background. I'm talking about the way they're organized. IBM organizes their strategic outsourcing teams, for example, in teams of about 100, with 5 to 10 senior-intermediate technical leads (they know syslog, kernel modules, TCP/IP, scripting, etc.), 20-30 intermediate technical leads (they know how to do general sysadmin tasks but don't really understand how to admin storage, the kernel or TCP/IP deeply ), and 60-80 freshers that barely can spell grep. There are exceptions, but this is often is by design to keep the costs down. IBM earns about $26. Billion. Dollars. in revenue doing this. Multiply that by 5x across the rest of the outsourcers. Multiply it again by 15x to cover the in-sourced shops across the world. This is an area where software is definitely eating an industry. Docker's target is for teams where (a) the devs do the work anyway, ops just sits there staring blankly on conference calls, perhaps operating a keyboard if you're lucky (80% of the enterprise IT shops on earth). So, route around them and only retain those who know what they're doing. or (b) the ops guys are devs to begin with as they've automated the shit out of everything (Netflix, Google, Startups)