Slashdot Mirror


Want an IT Job? Add 'Cloud' To Your Buzzword List

jfruhlinger writes "There was a predicted uptick in IT hiring for late this year, but it's mid-November and it hasn't happened yet. Kevin Fogarty does see growth in one area, though: cloud and virtualization experts are being fought over, lured away from in-house jobs to cloud consultancies popping up everywhere."

17 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Today's word..."Cloud" by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's important to define the word "Cloud" as no one else seems to, yet the definition itself lends great insight to the concept.

    The "Cloud", as referenced here, is nothing more than the delegation of responsibilities...specifically those of infrastructure. That's it. It's not some mystical cure all. In fact, it's nothing more than a glorified way to outsource applications.

    Now there are specific technologies which lend themselves to this concept ( those of virtualization, certainly ), but the overall goal is the same; the business doesn't want to worry about the infrastructure behind their app. They simply want it to work.

    Which is why internal "clouds" have always amused me to no end...

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Today's word..."Cloud" by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can define the cloud for you. Cloud (noun) : The symbol used to indicate parts of the network that you have no knowledge of. Frequently used by people to describe external computer resources as a new concept when their knowledge of computers only extends back to 1998.

    2. Re:Today's word..."Cloud" by digitalhermit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "Cloud", as referenced here, is nothing more than the delegation of responsibilities...specifically those of infrastructure. That's it. It's not some mystical cure all. In fact, it's nothing more than a glorified way to outsource applications.

      Well, no. The cloud they referenced was an "abstracted data-center infrastructure" and not necessarily a means of outsourcing applications. Yes, the downside/upside is that it eases moving workloads from internal to external clouds, but that's the point.

      Now there are specific technologies which lend themselves to this concept ( those of virtualization, certainly ), but the overall goal is the same; the business doesn't want to worry about the infrastructure behind their app. They simply want it to work.

      Is that a bad thing not to want to worry about the infrastructure? Traditionally servers are designed around the concept of a physical server. We used to name servers by rack number or some other geographic location. Virtual machines were often named according to what physical server they resided within. Cloud technology, once the marketing speak is burned away and the APIs get to a mature and standard state (i.e., an in-house or an outside hosted cloud looks the same to an application), would allow other ways of managing the hundreds of thousands of machines in large data centers.

      For example, capacity planning is a big deal. One of the responsibilities of a system engineer is to ensure that workloads can run properly on the servers. When there is a planned outage on one server or an increased load due to seasonal or scheduled work, the admins have to juggle the resources of the servers. In a planned outage we may use VMWare VMotion or Workload Migration and swing the workloads across. But then we often have to worry about IP changes, hostnames, virtual host software levels, etc.. With a properly configured internal cloud, this is a non-issue. I can literally click a button and remove a physical server from the cluster and it's completely transparent to end-users. Need to add capacity? I SAN-boot a cloned disk and the new server is automatically part of the cloud and ready to take on work.

      We used to build our environments around managing discrete servers. Even if we had streamlined the process, it was still very much centered around the physical box. For example, we can stand up a box in a manner of minutes using RHEL kickstart, but if we wanted to add high availability this often meant configuring heartbeat IPs, swing SAN disks, /etc/hosts files for private IP ranges, etc.. HA on a cloud is almost too trivial to detail.

      Of course it's not there yet, but it's where the more recent virtualization technologies was 5 years ago (and yeah, virtualilzation has been out for decades, but it has only within the past decade really surged).

    3. Re:Today's word..."Cloud" by BlindRobin · · Score: 5, Funny

      synonym of 'fog'.

    4. Re:Today's word..."Cloud" by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      What the hell does a company actually do, if it outsources even it's own knowledge management?

      The good news is that they don't have to know what they're doing, someone external will know for them.

    5. Re:Today's word..."Cloud" by homesnatch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Everyone is confused about the "cloud" because everyone over-uses the term.

      Essentially, the "Cloud" has three main points:
      It is a set of infrastructure resources.
      It is dynamically provisioned.
      It is self-service.

      Note that it has nothing to do with whether the resources are internal or external. I run an "internal" cloud at my company.

  2. enumerate overrated job-providing buzzwords... by underqualified · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll start... XML

  3. But only those with experience are wanted. by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet experience is the key here. Only candidates with at least 8 years experience in managing cloud computing in a virtualised environment will be considered.

    And don't forget to list your four years experience with administering Windows 7.

  4. Job market slow? Not everywhere. by mcvos · · Score: 4, Informative

    In my experience, there's plenty of choice. Not all of it great, of course, but there are some real gems passing along every now and then. They just get swamped in job offers for big Java enterprisey stuff. I try to scare them away by mentioning I don't want to work with Java, JSP or Struts, but since my CV contains the word "Java", they still contact me.

    Interestingly, they also contact me when they need an Erlang or Python expert, despite the fact that I have no experience in those languages. But my CV says I want to learn them. Really, nobody ever reads CVs. They just do basic pattern matching and assume that's good enough.

    My most interesting recent offer was from a company that wanted to switch to Scala. They had no Scala expertise yet, but needed some people wiling to learn and guide the transition. But it was almost an hour commute, partially by train, and I want to go to work by bike. But there's enough choice to be this picky, so the job market isn't exactly slow where I live.

  5. Yes, it is a very bad thing by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is that a bad thing not to want to worry about the infrastructure?

    Yes, it's a VERY VERY bad thing if your business and it's reputation relies on said infrastructure.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing by Brian+Quinlan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that a bad thing not to want to worry about the infrastructure?

      Yes, it's a VERY VERY bad thing if your business and it's reputation relies on said infrastructure.

      I agree. Which is why I would assume that your company manages the following infrastructure internally:

      • Power
      • Connectivity (data and voice both mobile and wired)
      • Transportation (you'd hate for your employees not to be able to get to work because the public roads are super-congested or otherwise unavailable)
      • Water (without working toilets your business is going to be in the crapper pretty quickly)
      • ...
    2. Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      All larger companies do have a "facilities management" department, which does at least some of these:
      • Power: they manage their own on-site power wiring. And UPS and (for some) even an onsite generating station (we have, and we even sell excess power to the grid)
      • Communication: they manage their office network and their PABX (to which both desk phones and company-issued DECT phones are connected. And many companies run a blackberry server)
      • Transportation: During winter, on-campus roads are gritted by the company, not by the commune. For foot travel between buildings, our company offers complimentary umbrellas :-) Within buildings there are elevators. And guess who built the parking lots, and the speed bumps on the access roads, and even the access roads themselves?
      • Water: On site water distribution is organized by the company. Some even have their own wells or storage ponds (think steel mills or others who need non-trivial quantities of water for cooling purpose)
    3. Re:Yes, it is a very bad thing by musicalmicah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And by the same token, smaller companies don't provide that infrastructure. This is exactly why "cloud computing" services are commonly targeted towards smaller companies. When you have three people in your office and a total budget of $500,000/year, buying and managing any infrastructure--for computing, power, communication, transportation, or water--can be daunting. Outsourcing management of these functions allows you and your employees to focus on your strengths.

      And despite what the business weeklies may pretend, a massive part of our economy flows through small businesses rather than megacorps with on-campus roads and storage ponds.

  6. The demand is there, like it or not by joh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One very simple example: Do you have ever set up Google Apps for a domain, with email, contacts, calendar, Google sites and so on? Yeah, it's all in the cloud and all you have to do is clicking on buttons and filling out forms. Now go and look at some user trying to set this up. More likely than not he will get as far as configuring the MX-records and then he will cry for help.

    All this cloud stuff seems to be so simple, but it very much isn't. And yes, this actually is nothing a real pro would like to bother with (you'll be fighting more with the UIs than anything else) but there is high demand for this, people think they can finally get away without someone who knows what he does, but they can't.

    Most of this is in no way interesting or satisfying work but just fighting half-wit user interfaces. It's sometimes insulting, actually. Instead of really setting up things and controlling things you're hanging off someone else's setup and try to beat some sense out of it. It's often frustrating, you often will have to come to the conclusion that things you would like to do just can't be done because they're not offered and you can't do anything about that. But hey, it's just work.

    Me? I'd rather setup a full server park from scratch with old PCs and Linux than fighting the "cloud", but guess what's in demand more. And yes, there's a whole army of trained monkeys out there, knowing every cloud service under the sun and with superhuman point-and-click abilities, but if you really know your job and also know about problems and limitations you can still easily make some money with this. Fun is this not, though. Fun is making things, not using things.

  7. Re:ignoring the 5 brain-dead replies so far... by delinear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also, I think it's easier to be a convincing generalist than a convincing specialist there's always someone with more experience than you). So don't do just SQL, or just .Net, or just Linux. Show them you know a bit of everything, and can learn new stuff quickly, and tell in your CV what specific kinds of things are still on your to-learn list.

    Definitely this. When I'm hiring a contractor/freelancer for a one-off job, I want specialist knowledge. When I'm hiring someone permanent, experience is always great but really what I want to see is that they have some interest beyond just slotting into a specific role for the sake of job security. If nothing else, showing that you have a broader interest than just .NET gives the impression that you're not just in this for the 9-5 but actually have a genuine desire to learn. I would also add that, even while out of work, there are things you can involve yourself in to show potential employers that you weren't just bumming around. Try writing to local business and offer your services cheap or even free, try and get involved with local charities or community events. It might pay little or nothing short term but if it lands you the job you want long term then it's as good as money in the bank. Finally, depending on location, you might consider doing some contracting - the lack of experience is a bit of a draw back but I know plenty of successful contractors who started out with less (just be realistic about earning potential until you get more experience), even during a downturn there's usually plenty of contract work (often more so, because companies look to get people in for short term projects rather than hiring permanent developers).

  8. Re:no I won't by DrgnDancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    YMMV, but in my experience there are three types of "low level" jobs in IT (not programming per se, though there are definite corollaries here, but "support IT"):

    1) Low level tech support grunt for a large company. You're going to be dealing with nothing but users. They are the entire focus of your life, if you get to deal with an "obscure network and infrastructure problem" it's purely by accident because your user happened to discover it. Even then, since you probably have minimal access to servers and network equipment, the best you'll probably be able to do is escalate it.

    2) Systems/network admin for a small company or facility. You'll still have to deal with users. You're probably the entire IT department, or at best the junior member of a very small team (all of whom want to push user issues off to you for the same reason you don't want to do them). On the bright side you're far more likely to be directly involved in building, deploying, and supporting the infrastructure. On the down side, unless it's either a really odd company or in the infrastructure business, the stuff will be incredibly vanilla. Windows AD and file servers attached to a few workstations on one or two logical networks and getting to the Internet via some form of SDSL. Probably a firewall appliance sitting between you and the DSL modem, and, if the company actually hosts its own Internet facing presence (most small companies don't), a small DMZ with the web and mail server. Not much for obscure here.

    3) Data center lackey for a large company. On the bright side, no users. On the downside you probably mostly haul boxes, rack system, replace parts, and make accounts. If you're both smart and lucky though you might be able to get yourself in good with the higher level guys and they'll trust simpler (for relative values of "simple") problems to you.

    Three offer the best possibility for what you want, though you usually have to be patient. Two is how I came up, and frankly I thought it was the best overall situation. You'll have to deal with users, a lot, but I don't really mind users to be honest (I'm a fairly social person, IT geek or not). The thing is, you pretty much to get see every aspect of IT. It's all on a smaller scale of course, but you actually get to do the planning, executing, and maintenance of your very own setup. You don't get a lot of obscure problems, but frankly those sound a lot sexier when you're sitting in college looking for a challenge than when you have a guy breathing down your neck wanting to know when things will be back up while you're still trying to figure out what the Hell happened in the first place.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  9. Re:no I won't by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Great ads and they work better than the truth of: Have no bloody clue what a probability is."

    I know, I know.

    I heard it put once that the best definition of the lottery was: " A voluntary tax for those that can't do math".

    But when I buy $5 worth every once in awhile....it buys me about 2 days or so of daydreaming of what I'd do if I won all that money....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........