The Death of Sysadmin
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:
The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".
Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now
In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.
-
@IRJ said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:
The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".
Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now
In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.
And really, only barely different than we were back in 2006. DevOps isn't really new, just a new "brand name" on the same work that we did then. If we moved my 2006 environment into 2019 with zero changes, we'd call it devops.
-
Not good DevOps, but acceptable DevOps
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@IRJ said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:
The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".
Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now
In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.
And really, only barely different than we were back in 2006. DevOps isn't really new, just a new "brand name" on the same work that we did then. If we moved my 2006 environment into 2019 with zero changes, we'd call it devops.
What were you using in 2006 for your CI/CD pipelines?
-
@Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@IRJ said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:
The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".
Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now
In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.
And really, only barely different than we were back in 2006. DevOps isn't really new, just a new "brand name" on the same work that we did then. If we moved my 2006 environment into 2019 with zero changes, we'd call it devops.
What were you using in 2006 for your CI/CD pipelines?
CI/CD is one of those new "long after DevOps was a thing" things. Even people doing DevOps were called DevOps before those were common. In 2006, it was insanely rare for even developers to use those things or be familiar with them. It's a very recent thing to start associating those with either field.
-
CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.
It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.
-
CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles
Uh what are the "other" approaches?
-
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Uh what are the "other" approaches?
Frequent Integration is more common, for example. If you work with developers, CI is something everyone knows, but the majority don't do. In fact, almost none do in the real world. Good ones might mostly do it, but the average developer isn't a good developer. The average development shop is still struggling with source control, CI isn't even on their horizon.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Uh what are the "other" approaches?
Frequent Integration is more common, for example. If you work with developers, CI is something everyone knows, but the majority don't do. In fact, almost none do in the real world. Good ones might mostly do it, but the average developer isn't a good developer. The average development shop is still struggling with source control, CI isn't even on their horizon.
That's not an other. That's part of CI/CD.
-
Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.
It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.
Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.
-
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.
Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.
-
@Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.
It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.
Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.
Um, duh. Agile is one approach to dev, one that promotes CI. I think you just stated by point, you are assuming one aspect of Agile dev and assuming that all DevOps comes from one bit of Agile dev, which isn't true at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.
Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.
Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.
-
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Uh what are the "other" approaches?
Frequent Integration is more common, for example. If you work with developers, CI is something everyone knows, but the majority don't do. In fact, almost none do in the real world. Good ones might mostly do it, but the average developer isn't a good developer. The average development shop is still struggling with source control, CI isn't even on their horizon.
That's not an other. That's part of CI/CD.
That's the first I've heard of something like that. CI means "continuous", not "occasional". We moved to CI because what we had before wasn't often considered enough. If all those things are part of CI, then everything is CI and it's all we've ever done. But that's not the case, frequent, infrequent, automated, manual integration were all around and CI came about as an alternative.
-
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.
Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.
Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.
True, but essentially no one moves to CI without code management first, it's so hard and cart before the horse.
You are looking at big, public repos and viewing the world that way. But remember, most development is done in languages like Java on old code bases in big silos where all of these concepts remain uncommon.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.
Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.
Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.
True, but essentially no one moves to CI without code management first, it's so hard and cart before the horse.
You are looking at big, public repos and viewing the world that way. But remember, most development is done in languages like Java on old code bases in big silos where all of these concepts remain uncommon.
Well we have thousands of applications 99% in Java in both SVN and Git and most are pipelined. Maybe not all are good pipelines, but they are pipelines.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.
It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.
Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.
Um, duh. Agile is one approach to dev, one that promotes CI. I think you just stated by point, you are assuming one aspect of Agile dev and assuming that all DevOps comes from one bit of Agile dev, which isn't true at all.
I think you are wrong here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:
Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.
Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.
Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.
True, but essentially no one moves to CI without code management first, it's so hard and cart before the horse.
You are looking at big, public repos and viewing the world that way. But remember, most development is done in languages like Java on old code bases in big silos where all of these concepts remain uncommon.
Ant, Maven, and Gradle are the building blocks of Java build tools leveraged in CI/CD. Its odd you would pick Java as a language that wouldn't be a part of that process.
-
@Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:
@scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:
CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.
It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.
Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.
Um, duh. Agile is one approach to dev, one that promotes CI. I think you just stated by point, you are assuming one aspect of Agile dev and assuming that all DevOps comes from one bit of Agile dev, which isn't true at all.
I think you are wrong here.
How does repeating what I said make me wrong? I keep saying that they are not the same. Not sure what you think you are arguing against. Nothing I've said in any way conflates the two.
