> If you’re a composer, you usually don’t want to build and operate the concert halls in which your music is to be performed.
This is an interesting comparison since the bigger the band, the more own/custom infrastructure they will bring with themselves. If they're big enough, they'll have everything both transported and installed exactly how they want. On the other hand, concert halls are shared so the infrastructure is more generic for all styles. And when you tour and play in small venues... you use what you get.
Pretty much the same thing applies here. Sure, you can say "just give me the database here" and not care more than that as a developer. Or even use a cookiecutter shared hosting service. But that only goes so far - the bigger the service, the more control / customisation you'll want. And that means this service will never really replace devops / sysadmins / whatever the company wants to use.
Fair point! But here's a question (and it really is a question, not a statement) -- should things be so complex in the first place that everybody is bringing their own equipment? In my mind, this is where the problem starts.
When you start fresh, you can do so with a very much standardized set-up so a lot of things can be abstracted away. Are you familiar with the paradox of choice? Actually things may get way easier if options are fewer. Also, customization shouldn't generally take you so far as to force you to look into infrastructure. There are services for which this is not applicable, of course, but if we were able to abstract away the infrastructure problem for many use cases, many developers and companies would benefit.
I guess my point is that DevOps, as we know it, should not be necessary unless you really, really need a complex infrastructure. But in this case, this calls for a real role (more like a sysadmin) rather than for devops in terms of a philosophy / mindset / hat a developer also has to wear. Makes sense?
Hello there,
this is kind of my first post over here. Being an agile evangelist for more than 10 years, this is kind of a revelation I wanted to share. Up until now, DevOps for me was just a given (after all, this really gets you "ownership" on the dev side), but with our work at WunderGraph, I found that it's actually just addressing a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
I would be really happy to get your thoughts and opinions on this. After all, the title is a bit controversial and of course I'm aware that the need for DevOps won't disappear entirely. But would you agree that as devs, you actually shouldn't have to dig into the heap of AWS / other services just in order to get your code running and deployed? Let me know!
Slightly offtopic, but the image of the periodic table is "just blurry enough" that I got very distracted with "are my eyes ok, is this just bad quality?".
This is an interesting comparison since the bigger the band, the more own/custom infrastructure they will bring with themselves. If they're big enough, they'll have everything both transported and installed exactly how they want. On the other hand, concert halls are shared so the infrastructure is more generic for all styles. And when you tour and play in small venues... you use what you get.
Pretty much the same thing applies here. Sure, you can say "just give me the database here" and not care more than that as a developer. Or even use a cookiecutter shared hosting service. But that only goes so far - the bigger the service, the more control / customisation you'll want. And that means this service will never really replace devops / sysadmins / whatever the company wants to use.