> Kim, speaking to us ahead of his debut conference in the UK, The DevOps Enterprise Summit, accepted this, saying: “So much of the narrative is around the unicorns – Google, Facebook, Amazon.” talking bollocks to morons who know even less about development than your average PHB
DevOps is for all, says DevOps pundit-in-chief. He doesn't have it in for the BOFH, honest
One of the architects of DevOps has said being a 900-year-old organisation with a mainframe is no barrier to overhauling your technology operations, even if you're a European outfit that hasn’t seen a green field development since the 19th century. However, Gene Kim, author of DevOps cult classic The Phoenix Project, did give …
COMMENTS
-
Thursday 9th June 2016 13:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
missed the point of BOFH
BOFH is not about the systems used, it's the people, te.g. he PHBs and their ilk that cause grief & require a roll of carpet & some quick lime treatment from BOFH & PFY.
Or in the magical DevOps world are all managers suddenly competent, & coercion to e.g fix a Trojaned non company laptop of bosses brother, mate, mistress whatever suddenly stops
-
Thursday 9th June 2016 14:23 GMT IHateWearingATie
I like Agile... but it aint a magic bullet.
Currently working at a multi-national helping them dig a large IT project out of the ditch it had been run into. Agile has a place in parts of the programme, but is resolutely NOT ALLOWED in other parts depending on the suitability of the methodology to either what needs to be done or the people involved (or both).
Its nice to hear someone being sensible about the constraints most of us work in with big corporates. Techno-utopianism is fine, but I bet those who espouse DevOps as the saviour to all our development ills haven't had teams foisted upon them whose average tech capability stopped evolving when the Apple II was released.
-
Thursday 9th June 2016 16:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Who Pays for DevOps?
My company hasn't changed the way they fund projects. But now I have to figure out my OWN resource budget? Unlikely. Why would management want to fund a engineering project that has a line item for IT infrastructure? What does the company pay the IT department for? (their question, not mine)
On legacy programs, you buy HARDWARE. I need X build machines, I buy X computers, bill them to capital, and call it a day. NOW I have to RENT VMs in a cluster offsite, PAY for resource and disk usage, and do that EVERY MONTH for the LIFE of my project (which could be 20+ years)? No thanks. (says the frugal manager)
It might work for Google who already lives in the Cloud and never commits to anything for more than a few years (how long is any single service in Beta? It's ridiculous). Some of us live in the real world, and we can't just fire up another Docker container, not when we have to somehow attach $100k worth of real, physical test equipment to it. This makes it a lot more difficult to implement DevOps.
-
Thursday 9th June 2016 18:32 GMT John 104
Re: Who Pays for DevOps?
@AC
On legacy programs, you buy HARDWARE. I need X build machines, I buy X computers, bill them to capital, and call it a day. NOW I have to RENT VMs in a cluster offsite, PAY for resource and disk usage, and do that EVERY MONTH for the LIFE of my project (which could be 20+ years)? No thanks. (says the frugal manager)
Can I come work for you?
-
-
Saturday 11th June 2016 01:10 GMT swm
I once worked for a large company making computer-controlled machines. Each subsystem of the machine would have its own controller which communicated with the other controllers over a proprietary bus. There was limited version control or centralized software oversight.
I once pointed out to the head of software development of the company that I could do the entire software and hardware control with a single 8086 processor (these were the old days). There was a machine clock of about 10 milliseconds which timed everything and my argument was that I could execute over 1000 instructions in that 10 milliseconds so it shouldn't be that hard. All I needed was a list of the various states of the devices and sensors and the proper responses. The problem then revealed itself - no department in charge of a subsystem was willing to give up control of their software they were developing for political reasons. Owning the code was one way to maintain political power.
Oh well.
-
Saturday 11th June 2016 10:22 GMT allthecoolshortnamesweretaken
"900-year-old organisation with a mainframe"
First thing that popped up in my mind when reading this was "Vatican". Although it's actually much older, you could roughly double that figure, give or take.
Anyway, my point is: if something works for a long, long time you might want to take a close look at it and find out why before you try something new just because it's fashionable right now.