Slashdot Mirror
The New IT Crisis
Matey-O writes "You've succeeded in delivering 5 9's, your server farm is a well oiled machine, the helpdesk lines lie dormant. No? Well then how do you get credit for the work you do, when all that's noticed is the downtime? When the IT budget has to be justified, and you're overworked, undermanned, and you have to apply three patches to 100 servers before Close of Business, what has to change in IT before we melt down? Marc Andreessen has an interesting article on what has to happen to IT next."
Ok seriously, does anyone RTFA anymore? How about the comments? This is a clear PR stunt aimed at producing more leads for Marc's new company. And ZDnet, that fine bastion of even-handed IT reporting, has once again saved us all by printing only the relevant facts. Just once I'd liek to believe that one of my old IT heroes didn't sell out and become a corporate whore (can you say RMS anyone?).
-- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
I think a better point to critique on his phone analogy is the implied point that the phone system isn't held together with "bailing wire" or "chewing gum." Nope, it's all pretty standardized, well-integrated equipment. Why is the phone service so much more "professional" than IT services?
;^)
Because phone service is a relatively well-defined, consistent, limited problem domain. Internet servers, dynamic web sites, and local security are loosely-defined, constantly shifting, open-ended problem domains. They're very different, and you can't compare one to the other.
However, for certain applications, there are well-defined standards, and well-defined practices. Still, for a lot of IT, it's a matter of custom engineering and architecture. For example, online content management: you can buy one of the management engines off-the-shelf, which will probably do most of what you need in a structured manner. For CRM, well, there's about a dozen of those. These packages are well-behaved in that it provides a well-defined interface, but that's not always an option (i know, i used to do data migration for small- to medium-sized businesses. at the low end, when you change systems, you'd better damned well know perl or some other text processing language to massage the data--that is, you need to be good with your bailing wire).
In the future, this situation will hopefully be better with standardization (mostly using XML it seems, even though the actual encoding doesn't really matter.. we could have standardized years ago, but nobody saw any benefit then). Having done data migration in the past, i'm all for keeping things disparate and non-standard, but that's because the work pays well and is fun
A better analogy might be a pool of corporate autos. Except that you don't have to interconnect the cars to get them to share load dynamically, or access content generated on one to form a report on the other, etc. A lot of IT is like trying to drop a big old hemi into a metro, or getting a suburban to go anywhere with just metros to provide power (two in front and one in back, it might go up a hill!).
Overall, I was not impressed with this article, but I'm afraid it's going to carry more clout than it should. oh well.
I am not typically supportive of
Why don't we just go back to the mainframe way of doing things?
When users had dumb terminals on their desk, they had the illision of a full power computer, but it was actually a small box with few moving parts that was linked to high-powered computers (or cluster of computers) who were actually doing the heavy lifting. Since all of the functional components were in the Computer Room, there was rarely a need for tech staff to touch the dumb terminals, and the tech people could work in their own distraction-free environment.
What's more, failures could sometimes be abstracted away from users. Hard drive failures happen, that's a fact of the technology. However, if a HD fails on a user's desk, it means that user has lost the use of their computer until it's fixed. If an HD fails in the datacenter, there's usually a backup of the data which can be put into play immediately by mounting the backup on a good drive that's already spinning. To the users, the disk crash can be practically invisible.
There's already tech technologies such as X-Windows and Windows Terminal Service with which to create GUIs on a dumb terminals. Why does the common secretary need a full-powered PC on her desk anyway?