Live data from Hacker News

The most obsolete infrastructure money could buy – my worst job ever

snellman.net

241–242 of 242 posts

Re: The most obsolete infrastructure money could buy – my worst job ever

#241
post #171

How ancient this all seems . . . until you realize people are doing the exact same thing by shipping "golden" VM/container images around instead of doing proper package and configuration management.

Yes. The DevOps people seem to be saying that the sysadmin job will go away, to be replaced only by programmers, but they miss what a sysadmin is - The sysadmin job has always been about keeping the systems that actually make money up and running after the developers got bored and moved on to newer and cooler technology. (Ugh. I'm actually pretty insulted by the incompleteness of the tools they write in an attempt to…

"So when building a new application, it doesn't really make sense to engineer it to be scalable from the ground up; you're probably going to throw it out before you have to worry about scaling ... if it's successful, you can pay someone to deal with the problems later"

Agree. It's important to iterate quickly and get the intent right and not sweat the small stuff, including whatever notion people have of what's "scalable" which usually is misguided if not a fantasy. Scaling is "a good problem to have" after all; it's only necessary if people are actually using your stuff in the large.

Having said that, migrating off of a terrible language is nearly impossible and always painful. Pick stuff with a good runtime -- Java, Go, Haskell, Erlang, C#, whatever -- and you have a chance of scaling if you ever need it.

Re: The most obsolete infrastructure money could buy – my worst job ever

#242
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The DevOps people seem to be saying that the sysadmin job will go away, to be replaced only by programmers, but they miss what a sysadmin is - The sysadmin job has always been about keeping the systems that actually make money up and running after the developers got bored and moved on to newer and cooler technology. (Ugh. I'm actually pretty insulted by the incompleteness of the tools they write in an attempt to…

"So when building a new application, it doesn't really make sense to engineer it to be scalable from the ground up; you're probably going to throw it out before you have to worry about scaling ... if it's successful, you can pay someone to deal with the problems later" Agree. It's important to iterate quickly and get the intent right and not sweat the small stuff, including whatever notion people have of what's "scal…

I was going to argue with you; but look at facebook. They started with PHP... instead of re-writing it in something sane, they wrote a better php runtime. So perhaps you are right.

It still seems wrong to me, though; it seems like if you've got several orders of magnitude more resources to build version 2 than you had to build version 1, you could re-do it from the ground up in something... better.

Post reply on HN