Feeds

back to article 'Amazon has destroyed the unicorn factory' ... How clouds are making sysadmins extinct

The rise of the cloud is wiping out the next generation of valuable sysadmins as startups never learn about how to manage data-center gear properly, a Pasadena tech biz boss has said. The problem, according to Steve Curry – the president of managed OpenStack provider Metacloud – is that modern upstarts are going directly to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Bronze badge

as one of those unicorns

As you call them..

It is pretty depressing to see how much companies have wasted on cloud services, at any scale. It's shocking to see so many clueless morons who think it's normal to be spending a half a million a month or more on cloud services. When it's quite common to have ROI of well under 12 months (some times 6 months or less) to build stuff out yourself. Of course you may have to pay people more to attract the talent. But hey if paying someone(s) more means your able to save an extra few million a year it's probably worth it (biggest "doh" face I can make).

I remember one cloud discussion where the installation fee alone was 4x my own costs for building things outright(with tier 1 equipment and 4 hour on site support).

But word is getting around slowly but surely what a scam most cloud services are(have yet to see one that isn't myself) from either a cost, features, or availability standpoint(or all of them combined). I talk to more and more folks who want out, or have moved out, but those don't make the news.

I heard of one rarity of a startup in Seattle who was spending 25% of their REVENUE on cloud have since moved out(or are in the process of moving out I forget -- with a 6 month ROI going to of all things high end Cisco UCS gear not exactly bottom barrel), and the rarity bit is the CEO is apparently overly happy to talk with anyone about how terrible their experience with Amazon was. Usually companies just keep quiet and try to forget about it or something.

Fortunately I have not had to bang my head against incompetent management over cloud in a couple years or so(having spent my own time managing crap in Amazon for about two and a half years - by far the worst experience in my professional career - and the management at Amazon cloud whom I met with personally are equally frustrating to deal with - one of them tried to get me fired once for a blog post), and not anticipating having to do that again anytime soon.

I sort of wish I could do more, I mean I see so much fail going on but I just can't come close to even starting to address all of it. I wish I could. I wish I could help more companies from making stupid f#@$@ mistakes by going to providers like amazon.

this image has been making it's way around recently amongst folks I know and it makes me feel good to see it.

http://thenubbyadmin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SAY_CLOUD_AGAIN.png

37
2
Bronze badge

Re: as one of those unicorns

A bit more to my post, there is also a massive sink of fail when it comes to many orgs and their own hosted stuff too, so obviously running your own isn't always the best thing unless you have some good folks running it. It's almost equally astonishing to me the leverage some IT executives have at massive over spending on solutions for problems that are just obscenely over spec'd because they don't know any better. But somehow are able to get their boards of directors etc to approve their massive budgets..

I work at smaller companies so don't see that angle of things very often at least first hand anyway. Someone I used to work with just joined up with a much bigger company and they have quite a bit of gear and somehow they have measured that their utilization of their own equipment is roughly 7% (and they have done quite a bit of virtualization apparently). At the same time they seem to be constantly "out of capacity". just poorly operated....sad to see.......situations like that repeated again and again.

--

The caveat to my posts I suppose are for my experience, all of the companies I have worked for over the past 14 years have been for companies that wrote their own software. In cases like that it just makes sense(pretty much always) to run your own infrastructure. Though it is still cost effective to do co-location at even moderate scale (I think even folks like Twitter use colocation extensively they are a big tenant in the QTS facility I am in). Building data centers from the ground up is really for those at truly massive scale. When I say data center I'm talking minimum a megawatt or two of power, not talking server closets or small server rooms.

15
1
Silver badge

Re: as one of those unicorns

I don't think 'the cloud' - as a rule - is a scam.

It is a quick-start, hands-off option. Kind of like renting space in a serviced office to get going quickly and avoid all the hassle of looking for an office and getting it fitted-out and cabled-up, engaging phone companies, ISPs and insurance agents.

17
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: as one of those unicorns

It might not make sense for a server room or a couple racks to do it in house. However, if you don't do it there, how will you cut your teeth? I think this is what this article brings out, and it's very true.

I talk to Java programmers from time to time and it always amazes me. It's obvious they didn't have to use a piece of software that ran on a Java VM before they learned the language. Otherwise they would vomit just knowing they were creating yet another abomination.

Apply this to any technology including my butt. People who have not used services that are in my butt, will never have that vomit feeling when programming services to be used in my butt. Anyway, this whole thing about my butt is really out of hand. The breaking news should be: "World realises my butt is not the best place to put your marbles."

5
4

Re: as one of those unicorns (No you are not...)

You admit yourself you work for small companies.

Here the issue is to find skills on massively scalable systems which, by itself. is outdated on the medium term because more and more applications will rely on loosely coupled resources in the future. DCs will still host 1000s of machines but they might need less orchestration because it will be built in software

2
3

Re: as one of those unicorns

We ran on AWS for about a year, with terrible performance and availability, and switched as soon as we could hire a top-flight sysadmin. The tipping point for where it makes more sense to build than rent is about $20K/month in cloud fees.

7
0

Re: as one of those unicorns

"It is pretty depressing to see how much companies have wasted on cloud services, at any scale" etc.

Just because you've come across retarded companies making the wrong decisions and doing things stupidly, doesn't mean that running your infrastructure in the cloud is automatically wrong. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of situations for a lot of companies, especially smaller ones. When doing AWS deployments I've never experienced crazy costs like the ones you're talking about, and running in the cloud gives companies a lot more freedom and flexibility than they would have with physical hardware, minus all the hardware management hassle.

To be a professional sysadmin you need to drop your prejudices and choose the right tool for the job. Sometimes AWS or similar is the right tool, and sometimes it isn't.

2
0
Mushroom

Re: as one of those unicorns

Ahh the sweet sound of someone who feels their jobs are under threat.

Nate, it's time to wake up to the hard cold truth of reality: unless you work for Google, Amazon, Facebook or another purely high tech company then the companies major reason for being in business is to do something, or make something, or trade something. It is not to run a server room of equipment run by a bunch of over paid technoweenies. In many cases, a vast majority of cases, outsourcing the actual computers to other people is a very sound business decision.

Yes, it may cost several 10's of thousands of pounds per month, and yes YOU may be more effective and efficient. But YOU are one in a million. There are a lot of very average, of actually very poor, sysadmins out there. There are lot of added costs to running a server room: the maintenance, the upgrades, the HVAC, and the sheer space it takes up. Do I want a server room or do I want the space back for 20 extra traders? Hmmm. Tough choice, let me think on that one.

Cloud services, or even better SaaS are the way that smart business are going. IT is now a commodity. Got the wrong cloud service? Not up to what you expected? Then churn. We all do this with our mobile phones. Now businesses will do it with their IT infrastructure.

My company trades coffee, We want to trade coffee. We do it very well. So, now, we trade coffee and we are not a computer company that also has a coffee trading arm. IT staff costs are way down and profit margins are up.

What's not to like?

3
6
Silver badge

Re: as one of those unicorns

>My company trades coffee, We want to trade coffee. We do it very well. So, now, we trade coffee >and we are not a computer company that also has a coffee trading arm. IT staff costs are way >down and profit margins are up.

>

>What's not to like?

Oh I dunno, when the cloud supplier goes bust or has a major failure or the link to your provider goes down and you suddenly find you can't trade coffee anymore and all your customers go elsewhere for the day. Or week. Or permanently. All for the sake of saving a few pennies on some servers and a medium sized room. Still, if there are more mugs like you out there I'll start buying shares in cloud providers since if there's one born every day I don't see why I shouldn't get some of their money.

4
0
Silver badge

Differnt organisations need different solutions

I can fully understand the BOFHs having a negative knee-jerk reaction to clouds. Just like electric street lighting put the gas lamp lighters out of business, this will impact the BOFH market. It won't eliminate the BOFHs though.

For a small company (say up to 20 people) cloud is great. If you're spending $20 per person per month on clouding then that's $400 per month. That's not going to get you much BOFHery or hardware. Clouds are going to be cheaper and will do the job better.

One small consulting company I deal with has around 15 employees. They're mostly programmers and could do all the BOFHery themselves. But they've pushed pretty much everything into the cloud.

What they found was that the BOFHery (fixing crap, updates, backups etc) was eating 2-3 man hours per week. That was 2-3 less hours they could bill out or around $250 per week/$1k per month, not even considering the cost of hardware, storing backups, tripping over boxes etc. They replaced most of it with $200 per month of cloud, keeping just some low-maintenance stuff that is harder to push into the cloud (license servers etc).

2
0
Silver badge

Re: as one of those unicorns

> Oh I dunno, when the cloud supplier goes bust or has a major failure

So having a BOFH in the house prevents failures does it?

A company down the road from me runs their own servers. A couple of years back the servers failed. They then found their back ups were not working properly. They lost a whole lot of source code + important business docs.

Sure, Google or other clouds can go offline, but most of them do a better job of doing backups and provide more 9s than you can do yourself.

> saving a few pennies

Joking right? Look at your pay packet + server costs + leccy bill + cost of renting the space. That likely adds up to more than "a few pennies" per employee.

For larger companies, it might make sense to run your own but for for smaller companies (most companies are small), clouding is (a) way cheaper and (b) way more reliable than they could do themselves.

0
4
Silver badge

Re: as one of those unicorns

>So having a BOFH in the house prevents failures does it?

If they know what they're doing - yes.

>A company down the road from me runs their own servers. A couple of years back the servers failed.

ALL the servers failed at the same time? BS.

>They then found their back ups were not working properly. They lost a whole lot of source code +

>important business docs.

If they're too incompetant to use RAID and do multilpe back ups to tape then is unlikely they'd be able to use a cloud service properly. But I'll tell you whats far more likely for a small company especially one not in a large city , and thats the network going down. Good luck using a cloud service then.

>Joking right? Look at your pay packet + server costs + leccy bill + cost of renting the space. That >ikely adds up to more than "a few pennies" per employee.

No I'm not joking. Cheap multiply redundant servers are commodity items and in a lot of cases cost little more than a decent desktop. If you have a company of 100 people with 100 desktops, buying 10 servers is chicken feed. And those servers can easily sit in a rack in the corner minding their own business. Once you're made the hardware investment you've got the cost of the staff but that'll be less than a decent cloud contract would cost over time.

4
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: as one of those unicorns

Dear coffee trader,

You just wait until the current price-throat cutting competition dries up, and you see your fees sky-rocket.

Then you will try to go back to a less cloudy model, but you will find out that you can not hire a sysadmin, because you can not find one.

6
0

Re: as one of those unicorns

Re: as one of those unicorns

Yup,

IMHO, there are two or maybe three ways to correctly use cloud services:

1) as a palliative, quick fix for certain start-up data processing problems (not having enough to build and run your own data center is an obvious one). Of course, if your business goes viral, AWS and its brethren quickly become the more costly option, so remember to stay in touch with your disgruntled, unemployed but talented techie friends and associates.

2) A properly analyzed, properly specced solution to existing data processing problems (like not having enough resources to manage demand spikes, resiliency needs or other scale-out, scale-up scenarios).

3) A solution for rationally compressing and optimizing traditional data centers, after doing all the homework and analysis.

All these scenarios presume that the management and IT bods (if any are involved) can do the math that will honestly and accurately assess, measure and monitor real work-flow capex and opex requirements.

By extension, that also presumes their ability to distinguish between snake oil and offerings which can provide measurable ROI. Use of a cloud service, provider or technology does not automatically eliminate the need for sysadmins, support or other technical people in the enterprise. But these roles will certainly evolve, some may disappear, some new ones may be created. In the old days, it was called skilling up. Nowadays, pink slips seem to be the preferred solution and are the uglier side of technological disruption.

But those who believe cloud services can cure any disease and solve any problem deserve what they get. There are many vultures waiting in the clouds ready to pick apart their plump, juicy carcasses.

Again and again, the technology is never the real issue, it is the PEOPLE who buy, deploy and make the wrong technological decisions that cause the heartbreak.

Cloud technologies are just tools in a box, not the Second Coming. Realizing this is the first step towards more success stories.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: as one of those unicorns

Thank you. I've been saying this for years.

The cloud is not your friend.

Have an upvote.

0
0

Re: as one of those unicorns

While cloud does has it place for some services, example if you are using an app, having your own infrastructure is a lot less cost. I estimated about 4-6 times less than running in the cloud. This is comparing a co-located rack in a Tier 4 data centre with a SQL cluster, 3 Hyper V host servers, iSCSI SAN all in a redundant setup with Cisco switches & firewalls etc.

Unless you just buy an App you log into be very careful with putting your infrastructure in the cloud.

0
0
SVV
Bronze badge

I'm glad people believe sysadmin skills are becoming extinct

As my own sysadmin skills acquired in big hosting environments with complex infrastructures will probably become a "COBOL skills circa 1999" commodity in terms of contracting rates when the deficiencies of the cloud-will-solve-everything hype become manifest and I can expect to be treated as a rare genius for my ability to write shell scripts........ well, maybe in my dreams.........

16
0
Silver badge

Re: I'm glad people believe sysadmin skills are becoming extinct

Seriously, compared to what most people have as sysadmins, you _are_ a genius.

Most sysadmins out there have never heard of rsync. They have never used a package manager or scripted something via ssh. Many probably wouldn't even find their way out of vim.

Those are people who live in the Microsoft bubble where people believe they don't need to be able to program, and that somehow it is normal that e-mail is something complex.

14
6
Gold badge

Most sysadmins out there have never heard of rsync

*puts fingers in ears*

LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

I refuse to believe this is true.

As for the "Microsoft bubble", well, there's robocopy, richcopy, DFSR (just off the top of my head) for file-level replication and Starwind for block-level replication (well there's lots more than Starwind, but Starwind's the only one I trust.)

But not heard of rsync? I...just...wha?

Beer. I need beer. I am going to go format floppy disks and drink beer while I dial up to one of the last remaining BBSes with my 9600 baud modem. Because I still can. (But for how long?)

11
2
FAIL

Re: I'm glad people believe sysadmin skills are becoming extinct

"Those are people who live in the Microsoft bubble where people believe they don't need to be able to program, and that somehow it is normal that e-mail is something complex."

Really? Good news! I can stop using Powershell or Perl when I need to carry out bulk data transformation and complex automated processes and everything will still be possib... oh. wait.

The primary difference between the scripting experience on Windows and the Linux World is that Linux had the better tools for years and years and years, not that it somehow didn't have to be done. If you're running SBS for 5-10 users, sure, you can live without it, otherwise Powershell is the order of the day and it's now under the bonnet of pretty much everything, everywhere in MS land. Try doing the Windows Sysadmin role in even a medium size environment without scripting, and please let me know how you get on.

9
0
Bronze badge
Pint

PowerShell?

PowerShell?? Some of us have been scripting complex system-admin tasks using VBS, Perl, and even good old 'DOS batch scripts, long before this funny PS thing came along my friend...

3
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: PowerShell?

"PowerShell?? Some of us have been scripting complex system-admin tasks using VBS, Perl, and even good old 'DOS batch scripts, long before this funny PS thing came along my friend..."

I've been one of those some of us for 20 years. The point I'm making is that previously you had to use a mishmash of whatever the heck worked to get things done, VBScript, Perl, Batch and in my case the UnxUtils Win32 ports to give me stuff like sed, awk, grep, wget, etc when Perl wasn't allowable or practical.

Powershell has massively reduced the patchwork tendency, not least because of the ability to use .NET system methods. You can go from one liners to stuff that resembles C# more than Powershell - I have to resort to Heath Robinson-esque workarounds much less these days.

5
0

Re: I'm glad people believe sysadmin skills are becoming extinct

"Those are people who live in the Microsoft bubble where people believe they don't need to be able to program, and that somehow it is normal that e-mail is something complex."

To be fair, I imagine there are people like that on both sides of the OS divide, with people considering themselves "Linux admins" because they admin a cPanel install on a Linux box, yet have no idea how to do anything at a bash prompt.

0
0

Re: PowerShell?

"I've been one of those some of us for 20 years. The point I'm making is that previously you had to use a mishmash of whatever the heck worked to get things done, VBScript, Perl, Batch and in my case the UnxUtils Win32 ports to give me stuff like sed, awk, grep, wget, etc when Perl wasn't allowable or practical."

Oh yes, been there, done that. Batch scripts basically acting as a wrapper to call vbs scripts and Win32 ports of Unix commands. Those Win32 port files are quite possibly the most used utils I've ever found. It's so much nicer now finally having a uniform language that can do all that (I know you probably could in VBScript, but I never really got my head into it), without having to worry whether I've already copied those scripts to a server. Being able to include much better help and error trapping is a benefit as well of course, using something designed for SysAdmins rather than programmers.

0
0

Re: Most sysadmins out there have never heard of rsync

There's always cygwin, with rsync loaded. :)

1
0

Re: I'm glad people believe sysadmin skills are becoming extinct

Being asked by recruiters looking for sysadmins whether I know shell scripting reminds me of the days when recruiters looking for VMS system managers would ask me if I knew DCL. (I think my response back then was that I wouldn't let anyone that couldn't write DCL scripts even know about the SYSTEM account let alone give them the password to it.) It boggles my mind that sysadmins would /not/ know how to write shell scripts even though I've met some who could barely write one and yet had been given the responsibility of managing critical systems at former employers.

3
0

Re: Most sysadmins out there have never heard of rsync

Must say that if I have to use a Windows machine for mote than a very short while I install cygwin. Most of the time this works fine for me.

2
0
Happy

Re: PowerShell?

From getting rsync working with dos PROPERLY ( ie link it in to volume shadow copy,so you can backup registry etc, vshadow.exe ) Ugggghhh what fun! And then a bit more of a code nightmare getting it to network properly. FUN FUN FUN.

Each new version of windows had a new way of doing things, and significant changes to the capabilities, so when powershell came out yeah it'll be about as useful as vbscript, capable but you still have to dig out the old tools, and forgotten when the NEW thing comes along. So with my meddling in powershell recently, I have actually been plesantly surprised by it...

Mind you, these days for scripting I'm finding myself going for python more and more. Just simply wrap any command line and the ease of getting stuff done well

http://xkcd.com/353/

0
0

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Sysadmins - the new buggy whip manufacturers

That analogy isn't so much fun when we are the buggy whip manufacturers is it?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Sysadmins - the new buggy whip manufacturers

I'm not sure the analogy holds. Clouds still use buggy-whips, its just someone-else wielding them.

The point of the article was that the skills required to build the infrastructure are being sucked up by big tech and no-one outside that area is bothering to learn.

It's kind of like introducing Windows into the DC. Sure, it might be a good point-solution, but people will end up assuming email requires some very complicated and expensive software with relational databases and proprietary protocols.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Sysadmins - the new buggy whip manufacturers

Email doesn't require complicated and expensive software, sure.

Sadly, "running Exchange" does, and when the overboss's edict comes down that he *will* be using Outlook, and it *will* be "working properly" (their term for having everyone using activesync on their iWossname and having group calendars and room booking) your options begin to get fewer, and it ends up being less trouble just to run Exchange after all.

Then you look at Office365, and realise that can be (mostly) someone else's problem, and do you want cloud? Because that's how you get cloud.

Please, opensourceland, make a mail server that the boss can use with Outlook and not tell the difference, that I can get running without 10 years of linux and development experience, and I will happily put the time in to learn how to drive it.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Sysadmins - the new buggy whip manufacturers

"The point of the article was that the skills required to build the infrastructure are being sucked up by big tech and no-one outside that area is bothering to learn."

But why should they? I'd accept that there's many situations, even the majority, where private infrastructure is cheaper and more controlled than cloud. But I can save money and have more control by doing lots of jobs that (in both business and personal contexts) I choose to outsource. Sometimes the quality of the outsourced work is poorer than a DIY approach would offer, so I tolerate higher cost, lower control, and worse quality, because the outsourced activity is something I simply don't want to do myself. At a personal level I choose to pay somebody else to maintain my car, my lawn, and do my ironing. In a business context we outsource IT infrastructure and the all desktop activity, we outsource catering, premises security, even entire facilities operations at some sites, and so forth, again because the costs and downsides of outsourcing are (if well done) less than the benefits of having somebody else do it for us.

This "get somebody else to do it" approach doesn't and never will fit all companies. But the situation hitherto was that you generally needed to build and operate your own infrastructure because there weren't adequate alternatives. There is now an adequate alternative, and there's no going back. As soon as the server virtualisation genie was let out of the bottle it opened the way for businesses like AWS to offer commodity grade solutions to businesses who don't want their fingers dirty.

4
1
Mushroom

Re: Sysadmins - the new buggy whip manufacturers

"Please, opensourceland, make a mail server that the boss can use with Outlook and not tell the difference, that I can get running without 10 years of linux and development experience, and I will happily put the time in to learn how to drive it."

They do - it's call Zimbra. OK - so not open-source any more but it doesn't involve the use of the Windows Spawn of Satan..

2
1
Silver badge

@ Ledswinger

I think the problem is that many of us have come to believe in all or nothing solutions. It's either all insourced or all outsourced and there's never any balance.

On one level I get managers wanting to outsource the risk of data loss to someone else and blaming them when something goes wrong. For me I'd always want to be able to put my hands on the server, the disk drive, and the tape backups.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Driven by bad accounting

Servers and sysadmins might be way cheaper than cloud services, but they are counted under "fix cost", as opposed to cloud services, that are "variable cost".

In the company I work for, "fix cut" is the newest management fad. All managers have fix cost targets in their target setting (which directly affects their bonus).

Most management fads blow over, sooner or later, so there is still hope.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Most management fads blow over

Yes, but there also seems to be a never ending stream of new ones, and they seem to follow Sturgeon's law religiously.

2
0
Silver badge

How I learned the company I'm at was using Amazon services

The company I currently work at has an out-sourced wiki and issue tracker. Recently we have found out that it sends it's e-mail via an Amazon e-mail service.

Amazon advertises that service by claiming that those mails will not land in spam filters... which is a problem for people using servers in the Amazon IP-range as it's crowded with spammers.

Well so far so bad, the funny thing is how we found out about that. E-Mail from that issue tracker... which uses Amazon to not be considered as spam, landed in the spam folder. :)

2
0
Bronze badge

But has this to do with the Failbox360, and it RRoD exactly?

0
3
R69

It isnt just sysadmins

...its infrastructure architects, project managers and other roles involved in the IT project lfiecycle as well.

Im all for using the right tools for the job - and cloud has its place - however its not the answer to every CTOs problems - and its those idiots that are turning cloud into the new outsourcing - i.e clouds the answer, whats the question, whereas it used to be (and still is) outsourcing.

Interesting to hear that as startups reach critical mass, they are looking for autonomy over their key IP - which does reinforce my earlier point - everything has its place

6
0
Bronze badge

As I like to point out to people...

If you had email on AOL in 1996, you were using "the cloud". What's next, "XXtreme Cloud"? I do not understand the fascination for dumping responsibility for data and services with another partner instead of doing them in house if you have the capacity. Is it easier? Somewhat. Is it more reliable and secure? Not likely.

Our company inked a deal in blood with Microsoft for mail and hosting services some time ago. I have to say that my job has never been less threatened---since MS took it over, we've had more problems, slowdowns, and outages than the last 5 years put together.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: As I like to point out to people...

The only thing I ever used AOL disks for was drink coasters.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

But....

Unicorns I heart them......

1
0

AWS is cheaper than outsourcing your data centres to Accenture...

1
0
Silver badge

What _is_ a 'sysadmin' anyway?

I think my problem with this article is not the sentiment so much as the term used: "sysadmin".

What does that even mean in the context of "large-scale operations at a global scale", where you have entire teams devoted to just storage, others to databases, specific applications teams (with their own internal sub-specialist), network admins, dedicated backup techs, and so on?

Systems Administrator' is necessarily ill-defined until you specify what systems are being administered.

2
0
JLH

I don't agree

As a sysadmin who looks after large scale HPC systems, I do not see cloud as a threat to my job.

Whether or not the kti is actually on my premises doesn't threaten my job.

Companies will STILL need people with a clue about networking - ie how in the heck does this magic 'data' get to and from the 'servers' - ie people who understand and can troubleshoot layer 2 and layer 3 problems.

Still need people who have a clue abotu exactly how processes are run on a system, and about performance measurement and right sizing of systems.

As a for instance, I just gained a 15% speedup on one of your systems just by having a chat with someone about how he was running things, and made a simple suggestion (turning off hyperthreading actually). My experience showed through there.

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: I don't agree

Software defined networking may reduce networking jobs, for example. I'm not saying it will, just that every time a company is created to solve problems such as "how do we turn networking into a platform" then it's a threat to those who tweak it by hand.

1
0
Silver badge

Don't be too smug

"I do not see cloud as a threat to my job." I would.

As the cloud displaces other sys admins, they end up in the market circling for other sys admin jobs, including YOURS.

At the least, other sys admins will start accepting lower wages and your employer will wonder why they're paying their sysadmin 50-100% more than the median sysadmin rate. That will put pressure on your future wage increases.

Markets are highly interconnected. When buses came along, people walked less, so shoes lasted longer, so cobblers had less work and many were driven out of business.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: I don't agree

Companies will STILL need people with a clue about networking - ie how in the heck does this magic 'data' get to and from the 'servers' - ie people who understand and can troubleshoot layer 2 and layer 3 problems.

You know that we know that, but often management does not. ESPECIALLY at the executive level.

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.