Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: What Will IT Look Like In 10 Years?

An anonymous reader writes "The IT industry is a lot different than it was 10 years ago; it underwent a huge boom in terms of labor and services required to keep up with the times. Now, we are entering a consolidation phase. The cloud makes it easier for companies to host e-mail, so now instead of organizations having their own Exchange guy, they will outsource it to the cloud. Instead of having a bunch of network engineers, they will deploy wireless and no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services. What do you think the long-term consequences of this will be? What skills do you think will be useful in 10 years? Is IT going to put its own out of work, like we did with the post office and libraries?"

41 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Wireless = less network engineers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've yet to see a corporate wi-fi deployment that required less work on behalf of the network guy/gal(s) than a similar wired user base.. maybe I'm just naive?

    1. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Going to all wireless will require at least as many engineers as now, but they'll have to be even better at it. They'll trade in their cat-5 testers for radio analysers to help them track down leaky ovens, malfunctioning wifi cards, and rogue devices. They'll enter new depths of hell trying to explain to an administrative assistant that the new potted plant in the foil wrapped pot is blocking her network connectivity.

      Meanwhile, IT will end up buying a golf cart to help hunt down freeloaders in the parking lot.

    2. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And another factor with wireless is the limited bandwidth. When too many are using wireless at the same time in the same location things slows down considerably.

      Even if you have 100Mbps but you share it with 20 people you may end up with 5Mbps. Wireless is also sensitive to electric noise, which makes things worse.

      So wired networking will be the primary alternative even in the future. Especially considering that the applications we run today require more and more bandwidth.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by flappinbooger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How much does the average hotel spend troubleshooting their wireless? I'd say close to zero.

      Hate to say it, but I have a hunch that as far as actual IT goes, if stuff goes more and more to a) wireless infrastructure and b) cloud computing - then the role of "IT department" will come down to not much more than TSA agents - underqualified boobs who get ultimate authority.

      IT will troubleshoot the desktop systems by rebooting, then if that doesn't work replace it with an identical disposable appliance and send back the "defective" unit for recycling.

      Since everything is on the cloud, the only other task for "IT" is to make sure the internet connection stays up and - here's the TSA part - police internet usage to ensure compliance with corporate internet and computer use policy. IT Tools will be comprised of keylogging, remote screen viewing and internet access logs. Noncompliance will be dealt with by more ... invasive .... searches.

      IT will be staffed by pimply faced youths who are susceptible to power trips and a mean streak.

      The IT director will herd the thugs and needs no qualification other than being able to negotiate the company needs with cloud service vendors who - generally - are good at telling companies what they need.

      Computing will become not much more than another utility dealt with by the maintenance department.

      Bleak? Too pessimistic? Inaccurate? Get back to me in ten years.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    4. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2

      The average corporate IT department has ALREADY degraded to the level of TSA; more interested in "compliance" than business success. At some point, the pendulum has to swing back the other way -- cutting the costs imposed by all of these policies and self-important police. By that time, I think we will have a "bring your own" mentality towards desktop hardware, just as mechanics are expected to supply their own tools. Instead of buying servers (or even cloud-based virtual servers), corporate IT will buy complete applications whose server-side infrastructure is vendor-supplied. Mandatory stupidity and shortsighted cost control have pretty much killed off the ability to handle IT any other way.

      The future model of IT is what home users and especially college students are doing right now. My KIDS have less computer downtime than the average corporate IT worker, and our household budget does NOT include an e-mail administrator or desktop support.

    5. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      The average corporate IT department has ALREADY degraded to the level of TSA; more interested in "compliance" than business success. At some point, the pendulum has to swing back the other way -- cutting the costs imposed by all of these policies and self-important police. By that time, I think we will have a "bring your own" mentality towards desktop hardware, just as mechanics are expected to supply their own tools. Instead of buying servers (or even cloud-based virtual servers), corporate IT will buy complete applications whose server-side infrastructure is vendor-supplied. Mandatory stupidity and shortsighted cost control have pretty much killed off the ability to handle IT any other way.

      You say that is if IT asked for SOX, HIPAA, PCI, etc along with all of the script-kiddies (and professional hacker networks) that are actively looking for vulnerabilities. IT engineers a network that meets compliance regulations because they *have* to, not because they thought it might be a fun thing to do. After a few SaaS providers are hacked, it will be interesting to see what kind of responsibility the customer has for the hack even if they made sure that the provider had all of the right certifications.

      If the company doesn't care that its customer list is emailed to a russian hacking network, they should just tell their IT department that network security is not needed. Security is inconvenient, and sometimes gets in the way of doing real work. Each layer of security you add on to the network adds complexity and a potential source of failure (sure, in a perfect world, your HA pair of network filter proxies would never go down since they have built-in redundancy, but when the vendor supplies a bad update file that slows them both to a crawl, then everyone is unhappy).

      I once had an executive demand to be exempt from our password policy (which was quite reasonable - 8 characters, complex, 90 day expiration) because it was too hard to remember a new password every 90 days. I put together some written justifications for the password policy, pointing out that if he wanted to maintain access to the data that he has now, we'd be in violation of several regulatory mandates (which I would have to report in our next annual audit report), and asked him and my boss to both sign the paperwork to show that they were taking on all of the risk. Neither signed, and the exec somehow figured out how to remember his passwords (which I suspect meant writing it down, which is no longer a problem since we're now using 2 factor authentication)

      So basically, I'm saying that if you don't like the way IT runs your network, just absolve them of any responsibility for opening it up and doing it your way, and I'm sure they'd be happy to comply.

      If your kid's facebook page is hacked, no one cares except them. If your hospital lets your health records leak out, they can face large fines, and if it was a egregious violation, individuals can face personal fines and criminal charges.

      The future model of IT is what home users and especially college students are doing right now. My KIDS have less computer downtime than the average corporate IT worker, and our household budget does NOT include an e-mail administrator or desktop support.

      Unless your kids are hosting their own email server, your household budget *does* include an email administrator, you're just paying it to your ISP (or through trading off some privacy and pageviews to an ad-supported email provider)

      This may come as some surprise to you, but maintaining an enterprise network of 500 desktops is different then a single desktop - a college student can spend 2 hours of his own time recovering from a virus infection, doing that across 500 desktops with 2 helpdesk staff would take over 2 months. (which is why IT makes you keep your files and windows profile on the fileserver, so instead of spending 2 hours trying to clean up an infection, they can spend 5 minutes starting a reimage of your compute

    6. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      I used to think the same, but in my office with around 200 people, most quite active PC users, with our new wireless setup most people have stopped connecting up the laptop to cable when they move back and forth between their desk (if they have a permanent one) and meetings/workshops, and just use wireless. Even when doing videoconferencing. It has become more than good enough. Only time I notice the difference is when moving very large files (GBs) over the network. There are many thinks you can do setting up a good wireless network to give a high density of users good effective bandwith.

      For a competing datapoint, I'm in an office with 500 people and 50 discrete Wifi zones (ok, not all in the office areas, maybe 30 of them cover the offices) and the only time people use Wifi is when they are in a conference room, and even then they complain about speed "How come it takes soooo looong to open up this 50MB powerpoint presentation? It only takes a few seconds at my desk!". Everyone gets a 1Gbit connection at their desk. The most they are going to see on Wifi is 22mbit, and most real world speeds are much lower than that. We'd like to roll out dual-band wireless N, but only about 20% of our endpoints support it, so perhaps next year when it gets better penetration we'll be able to justify the rollout.

    7. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      You say that is if IT asked for SOX, HIPAA, PCI, etc along with all of the script-kiddies (and professional hacker networks) that are actively looking for vulnerabilities. IT engineers a network that meets compliance regulations because they *have* to, not because they thought it might be a fun thing to do. After a few SaaS providers are hacked, it will be interesting to see what kind of responsibility the customer has for the hack even if they made sure that the provider had all of the right certifications.

      No network, no hacking the network. You're a solution in search for a problem.

      What? A SaaS provider doesn't mean no network, I still have all of the desktop network security concerns on my network, but now the SaaS provider's network is a target too so I have to rely on them to provide adequate network security.

      Unless your kids are hosting their own email server, your household budget *does* include an email administrator, you're just paying it to your ISP (or through trading off some privacy and pageviews to an ad-supported email provider)

      Given the fact that you're already doing that, why the hell go and find an extra admin, added to the payroll? Let the cloud companies take care of it and just call your ISP if your internet connection is down, because... you know... That's what they're for. Do you also have a phone operator, just in case you're getting phone phreaked? Lol..

      My business ISPs don't include email for free, my ISPs include data only. I'm sure I could pay more for email, but I'd have to pay a lot more for hosted Exchange, and my users won't let me get rid of Exchange. I've priced it out and it's still cheaper to run exchange in-house given that we have to have Windows admins on staff to run other systems.

      I do have a phone operator, who manages the corporate phone system and call center telecommunications - a day of downtime of the call center can cost us more revenue than an entire year of salary for the telecom manager.

    8. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by iamhassi · · Score: 2

      I've yet to see a corporate wi-fi deployment that required less work on behalf of the network guy/gal(s) than a similar wired user base.. maybe I'm just naive?

      Agreed.

      "....they will deploy wireless and no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services."

      Extremely wrong. Cable is plug-n-play, you plug it in and you're on the network, no issues. Wireless will always need to be password protected so there will always be at least password problems. I worked tech support at a 7,000 employee company where many of them had laptops and almost half our calls were wifi password questions which means about 6 people had jobs just for wireless networking support. I don't think we ever got a call with wired networking issues, if we did I didn't hear about it. Along with wifi password you have "Which router do I connect to?" which is not a issue on cable and "Will my device connect to the wifi network?" which again is not a issue with cable.

      I have to say that's probably the most inaccurate statement I've ever read in a /. article description, I can see why it was posted by AC.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    9. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by That's+What+She+Said · · Score: 2

      I got late to this talk, but I can say with huge confidence that you're far from naive.

      And I'll tell you why... The summary contains one of the most stupid lines I've ever read on slashdot:

      Instead of having a bunch of network engineers, they will deploy wireless and no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services.

      So, the poster means that wireless requires less network engineers, when it's quite the opposite. Wireless networks are not so difficult to plan, but require services like professional site-surveys and spectral-analysis, which are crucial for an adequate network design and cost a lot. The difference: cabled networks work fine for ages, even when the physical layout of the office, building or warehouse changes. Wireless will need tuning much more often, thus requiring more engineers to maintain it. Factors like neighboring networks (even when they're not rogue devices) have huge impact on performance and have to be actively monitored, identified, understood and avoided.

      To implement a high-performance, secure and reliable wireless network, the infrastructure is way more expensive than in wired networks, which will still be needed for the core of the network.

      You can get thousands of feet of Cat-6 cabling with the money you'd pay for a single Cisco 802.11n access point. For corporate networks, it would be advisable to use a WLAN controller, which costs a few thousand dollars for something like 40 access points and get even more expensive when you need more APs.

      To automatically detect and prevent intrusions -- and really comply with PCI-DSS, SOX and HIPAA with less human interaction --, you'll need something like Motorola Solutions AirDefense Platform, which will cost really big bucks. And you'll need a certified professional to, at least, make the initial configuration.

      So, when the poster says "no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services", he's right. You need future levels of network engineering services, not the current ones.

    10. Re:Wireless = less network engineers? by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 2

      Your analogy is flawed. Hotels that provide free wifi do indeed spend next to nothing on maintaining that infrastructure - and it shows. As the network guy for a major organization (we probably have 85% household name recognition in the US, probably higher in Europe/Asia) that has 20% of its staff spending >200 nights/year in hotel rooms, I can tell you that hotel wifi coverage leaves much to be desired. About 50% of hotels with free wifi will have one of the following: A) coverage that makes it unusable in half the rooms, B) restrictive/broken firewalls, or C) a lack of bandwidth to the point of being useless for getting any work done. Try using a network like that in your place of business and see how long it takes management to cave on running cat5. Not long is my guess.

  2. Flawed premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The rumors of the death of "in house mail" is greatly exaggerated!
    Though I agree the "Exchange guy" may become a dinosaur with the continue rise of the "Linux guy".

    1. Re:Flawed premise by alphatel · · Score: 2

      It's a relative proposal. The need for a guy and a server has waned as cloud computing becomes the viable option for a small company. Sure you can drop in a NAS if you know even the smallest thing about computers and setup email with any of many cloud providers. But is that going to work when the office is 10 executives instead of 10 social media marketers?

      The life of the cloud I think is what is exaggerated. The massive cost reduction the providers are seeing in providing the distributed data are due in part to offshoring and offhosting. A great deal of firms really can't bear that, especially with the US reaching further into data banks without warrants looking for whatever activity might suit them. The pullback is inevitable - its only a question of when.

      Either cloud will start to look less attractive or IT firms will build better scaled systems. Usually when the hour looks bleakest is when the opposite happens. I would keep my eye out for local infrastructure changes that bring IT back in-house and delegate cloud computing to insensitive data and socially interactive applications. Having 200 people from a city I never heard of in a country I've never visited be in charge of all my material assets is a problem.

      At least with the IT guy you know where you stand, and who's looking.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:Flawed premise by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      However the cloud won't be able to compensate for the network latency when accessing data. This can be a major issue. Just going cloud-based isn't the perfect solution for everything.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  3. Questions from the original article... by biodata · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What will be the effect of organisations outsourcing everything and not employing engineers? Things will be poorly engineered and insecure. Everything will work a bit less well and take longer to get fixed. China will run things.

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:Questions from the original article... by Genda · · Score: 2

      Sorry but this is incredibly naive. In ten years China will be the worlds largest economy and as hard as they are trying to grow IT professionals they will terribly short and American engineers who saw the curve early and capitalized on it will do very well indeed. Absolutely, learn Mandarin, it will serve you well the rest of this century.

      Advances in swarm technology, adaptive intelligent systems, self optimizing technologies with move most engineers to position of working on IT metastructures at least on level removed from the data stream, probably more. With any luck human interfaces will improve dramatically. Security will become critically important as that threat to security will only grow, especially as poor practices today will result is massive failures in the not too distant future and business and government will knee-jerk respond by setting outrageously high security standards.

      This suggest that jobs will move but the need for engineers will remain the same of grow (possibly grow a great deal.) That will continue until we develop human level AI and implement that intelligence into the networks and security systems themselves. Of course, once Human Level intelligence becomes commonly available, most of the jobs that human being do will be relegated to machines. The real issue then, becomes, unless we figure a way for common people to benefit from the ultimate migration to a robotic workforce the vast majority of people everywhere in every walk of life will suffer and the only ones who profit will be those vanishing few who are milking the planet dry today.

    2. Re:Questions from the original article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What exactly does "This." mean? (It seems redundant)

      It seems to be a recent colloquialism roughly equivalent to "hear hear" i.e. expressing agreement and support for the position of the previous commenter. It is a little grating but if it continues to catch on then presumably it will start to sound more natural.

      Although it might seem redundant with a comment that goes on to express agreement anyway, it probably actually can be a useful signal of where the paragraph is going, so the reader is following it with an expectation of a supportive statement rather than a dispute. Similar to starting with "I agree", "I disagree" or even just "Yes" or "No".

    3. Re:Questions from the original article... by wisty · · Score: 2

      Cantonese is very much a minority language. The reason so many overseas Chinese speak it is because they immigrated from Hong Kong, where Cantonese is spoken.

      Mainland Chinese (and or including Taiwanese, depending on your political stance) learn Mandarin at school, and have for decades. You can meet old people (especially in poor areas) who only speak local dialects, but all young people know Mandarin.

    4. Re:Questions from the original article... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Mandarin is the official language, required in nearly all schools in China Proper, and all PRC Chinese are expected to know it. (It's a bit different in the autonomous regions like Inner Mongolia and Tibet, but that's beside the point.)

      Only about 10% of mainland Chinese speak Cantonese or a related dialect, and it is an official language only in Hong Kong and Macau. It is not official in Canton or any other Mainland province. The dialects were actively suppressed in the early years of the PRC, but there are now even a couple of Cantonese-language radio and TV stations.

      However, Cantonese (or a close relative known as Hakka) is spoken more widely by *overseas* Chinese, particularly in the US, as well as in Southeast Asia.

      BTW, contrary to what's often claimed, there *are* differences in writing the various dialects, at least in the case of Cantonese. Not only are many or most characters are pronounced differently, many of them have different meanings, some of the standard characters are not used, are altered, or are altogether replaced by nonstandard ones. What's true is that 98% of any printed matter you're likely to see is Mandarin.

      When I've visited Canton, I've found that the locals tend to use Cantonese amongst themselves, but switch readily to Mandarin when speaking with non-Cantonese visitors. I'm told that some long-term migrants from other parts of China eventually pick it up (others don't, obviously).

      But don't bother with Mandarin in Hong Kong--hardly anyone there speaks it, so you're better off just using English.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Questions from the original article... by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      In foreign affairs, it used to be "the optimists learned Russian, the pessimists learned Chinese". Now, it's "the optimists learn Chinese, the pessimists learn Arabic".

    6. Re:Questions from the original article... by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mean, really -- other than Larry and Sergei reading our mail, there really isn't much of a downside.

      LOL how about this

      Now we don't have that mystery missing-man-day every month when something inevitably goes wrong

      No no no. What you mean is now you CAN NOT spend a man-day when something inevitably goes wrong. Just toss your hands up in the air, shrug the shoulders, and go home. Don't confuse lack of ability to control with lack of need to control.

      I've been involved on the service provider side of what is now called "cloud computing" for about two decades. You, as a customer, are worth exactly what you pay us, adjusted somewhat by cost of new sales. Not a penny more, not a penny less. Lets say, $50/mo for outsourced email. We could and did simply drop "expensive" customers. You lose a $10M contract because email from .hk was getting blocked? Oh I feel so sorry, if I'm in a good mood, here's a credit for one month of service, buh bye, if I'm in a bad mood, here's a credit for one email's worth of service, lets say $1, buh bye. Bug us "too much" and unless there are marketing implications, we drop you like a hot potato. At $50/month and $75K/yr for me, we simply could not afford to provide much 1 on 1 help to customers. Our support budget was about 10% so every month we could afford to help each customer about $5 worth, which at about $40/hr means just enough time to hear your monthly problem explanation and me to tell you that unless its a major systemic failure, that was a nice anecdote, now you're SOL, please go away... What happens after you go away is our profits go up, what happens to you... well frankly we didn't have any reason to care. I would assume some of our more "internet focused" customers who we gave the internet-death-penalty simply went out of business. The folks who didn't depend on the internet services we sold, probably had their profits go up, minus our hefty early termination fees of course. Either way, anyone using our outsourced services more or less universally ended up better off after contract termination. That's why I'm not in that line of work anymore.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:Questions from the original article... by earls · · Score: 2

      Reading, motherfucker, extremely informative.

  4. IT has always been cyclic; no surprises coming by Whuffo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Almost every company depends on networked computers to perform critical daily tasks. IT's function is to provide and maintain the computing infrastructure.

    Unfortunately, there's MBA types counting beans and looking for places to save money. They look at IT and see a cost center; IT adds nothing to the bottom line.

    So let's start with a company with a healthy IT department; since they do their jobs, all the computing resources are up and running, problems are few and far between and quickly resolved.

    The bean counters look at the situation and how much they're paying IT - and see that everything is working fine. What are we paying these folks for? Lay them off to save money.

    Things keep running for months but start to fall apart around the edges; the users fix some of their PC problems and work around others. At about 18 months or so something critical goes down; the Exchange server takes a crap or something similar. Now they're in a panic; we need qualified IT staff, pronto. So they start hiring again (at a higher pay scale) and the cycle repeats.

    Try not to confuse this cycle with the longer cycle that moves computing power from the server to the desktop, then back to the server, back to the desktop and now back to the server. "Cloud" is just BS talk; it's dumb terminals on the desk and everything on the servers (again).

    Working in IT is like being in a big game of musical chairs. The pay is good when you're getting paid, but there are gaps between the jobs. Right now isn't good for IT people, but in a year or two...

    1. Re:IT has always been cyclic; no surprises coming by wisty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But IT'S OFTEN NOT DISTRIBUTED.

      It's often just a virtualized single server, running on a single server on Amazon's rack. And Amazon doesn't care about uptime for that individual server, because it's a cloud, and you shouldn't be so dumb as to run a service on a single server, despite that being what people are using it for.

      Yes, it was a great idea - write everything in a distributed way, and it can be omnipresent. Like a cloud. But only if you wear the cost of doing it the right way, which nobody does.

    2. Re:IT has always been cyclic; no surprises coming by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

      You must be new to IT, or at least networks. "Cloud" isn't new at all. Network diagrams (going back at least to how DEC drew DECnet ones) have long used "grey clouds" to indicate areas of the network where the internal details weren't important to understanding. So, "cloud" in relation to networks has been used for 30+ years.

      So, "cloud" services are just ones that are out there in that cloud - you don't necessarily know or care the exact network path to the service, it's just at the other end of some pipe (oh, that's another networking term you should get used to - we don't use real pipes, either).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:IT has always been cyclic; no surprises coming by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bean counters look at the situation and how much they're paying IT - and see that everything is working fine. What are we paying these folks for? Lay them off to save money.

      It sucks to be the "Maytag man". I don't understand why it is so hard to convince people the success of NT in organizations over Unix was due to the fact Unix didn't need constant attention but talented (more expensive) administration. When they are paying a Unix administrator $150k and see him/her sitting on their ass 90% of the time they decide to keep the "hard working" $65k person on staff because they are constantly doing "technology stuff". Oh. And the 65k person knows Excel short cuts.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:IT has always been cyclic; no surprises coming by NotSanguine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I found that quote quite amusing back in 1993 when most of you were still being bullied by the guy who (these days) is ringing up your purchases at WalMart.

      The quote is:
      One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How enthusiastic is our support for UNIX? Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago. Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple language, easy to understand, easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual users, and it's great for interchanging programs between different machines. And so, because of its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have good UNIX on VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s. It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming. With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no matter what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of documentation -- if you look long enough it's there. That's the difference -- the beauty of UNIX is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all there. -- Ken Olsen, president of DEC, DECWORLD Vol. 8 No. 5, 1984

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    5. Re:IT has always been cyclic; no surprises coming by cjonslashdot · · Score: 2

      I think that Amazon, Google, and Apple would all disagree with you. For them, IT is the most strategic element of their company. Check out this article in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.html

      PS - Your comment that people who disagree with you are "a scourge on the industry" is somewhat nasty. I hope that you can continue this discussion in a polite manner, and accept differences of opinion in a gentlemanly way.

  5. Mostly Agile by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There will be a lot more agile shops, most of them implementing extreme programming, and making the developer feel even more like they're just part of a production line.

    Don't get me wrong, I think parts of Agile are OK, but I've been to far too many interviews in the past where the interviewer thinks that Agile is the be all and end all of programming.

  6. Gotta admit, Steve Jobs said it best: by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Steve Jobs in his last single interview with Walt Mossberg had a very good example of what is happening with IT right now. It basically goes like this:

    The very first cars were trucks. The very first chariots humans built were to hawl food from A to B. They were utility vehicles. Only later, when the vehicles of each age became a commodity, did they turn into everyday passenger vehicles that had a certain mass-availability.

    The computer now is doing the same thing, moving from being a tool for workers to being a commodity for everyday use by everyone, not just experts. Experts like us don't like that very much right now, but that's the way it goes. Bizarre IBM age keyboard layouts are finally becoming a thing of the past, UIs are becoming more task focused and the need for abstraction whilst using a 'Post-PC Device' is demising quickly. Even the mouse and the file-system is quickly fading into a specialist tool.

    Everyday commodity computing is basically going the way of the iPad.

    IT will move to a stronger separation of end-user and expert computing. Workstation-Laptops will become more rare and expensive, purpose built for programmers and admins to use them whilst tablet and netback devices will become a dime a dozen in all kinds of varieties. People won't look for actually performance but for brands of services. Sales talks like this: 'Can my device Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and Netflix?' 'No, it can only Twitter and Facebook, you need an upgrade to Netflix with it.' will become normal at the HiFi-Store or carrier outlet.

    Some vendors like Apple, Nintendo or Sony will have a strong vertical lock-in with cushy comfort solutions that require upgrading every 3rd year, others will be more open and more utility focused.

    Carriers will get into bed with hardware, software and service brands more often. I expect branding and mindshare to become even more important than today in many places. To emphasize: I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft moved to the Linux kernel in a few years time and nobody would really care or even notice.

    Our kind will specialize more and the rich-client web will get a new boost - as it is happening right now - because the platform diversity mess will be very much 1980ies style also like it is right now again.

    All in all I'm not to scared about the way of IT, crazy DRM & patents, Human Rights and eavesdropping laws aside.
    It's going to be just as interesting then as it is today.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  7. The anon is an idiot who eats buzzwords as if they by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The anon who wrote this question really should stop eating buzzwords like they are candy, they are rotting what little brain he had to begin with.

    Wireless to replace the networking guy? Because wireless is just plug and play right? You just setup one of those magic boxes and voila, the entire office building has zero-config access. That is the level this guy is thinking at, it shows he just hasn't got a clue. Just because you used wireless on your home router doesn't mean you are a networking expert, wireless or otherwise. Setting up wireless access is in fact harder for a big building then wired. Wired is simple, you got a cable, you draw it, you test it, it works. Cable doesn't get interference from a microwave or a factory nearby that runs something every monday. It has no dark spots, no interference. And you know what cable you plugged into which PC. I worked in offices where the visitors wifi was only working in the offices, not in the reception or meeting areas. That is helpful.

    He also proposes to move your email into the cloud. Clearly he never worked with regulators who would throw such a fit at handing all your confidential data over to a third party.

    This is just another post by some kiddy who heard some buzzwords and thinks his massive experience setting up his mom's computer gives him an insight into what IT support for even a medium sized company is all about.

    The future is always just the same. Why? Because things don't change all that much. Take flying cars, do you think they are going to solve grid-lock magically? Right, because the entire skies will be open to them right? Do you want flying cars buzzing over YOUR house? No? Then they will be confined to corridors, highways in the sky, just as congested as roads. Proof? Airliners are already having trouble fitting enough planes into busy areas. Now imagine every jumbojet replaced by 300 individuals in the skies.

    IT hasn't changed all that much. Even if you go wireless and into the cloud it will STILL require an admin on the ground to deal with it all. Just look at how often Amazon's cloud has been down. If you been in IT a little bit longer then this baby anon, you will know that IT is always changing and changing back again. From mainframe to PC's to the network to the cloud... it is just the latest craze. So the cable puller now pulls a cable to the wireless box and spends his time not checking cable but reception. Big whoop.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  8. Monetisation will work and advertising will die by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Funny

    Some time in the next 10 years somebody will crack the "problem" of micropayments: fractions of a penny. Once that happens then pretty much every website will cost something to visit - the commercial imperatives are too high for it to be otherwise. Apps will also charge on a per-use basis, rather than a buy once and use forever principle.

    Once sites can charge 0.05p for a visitor to view a page, both the need for advertisers and the attraction they offer will become obsolete. Websites will make their money directly, and the iron grip around their testicles will pass from the search engines that pass them advertising eyeballs, to the brokers that process their micropayments - though there will be huge battles between the old regime: of Google and it's friends and the newcomers, from wherever they come.

    I would expect the transition to be particularly painful, especially during the time when there are two iron-grips (one on each 'nad?) pulling in different directions. The resolution will come when part of the micropayment can be passed on to the referrer - whether search engine or linking site, in lieu of their lost advertising revenue - though we can expect the landscape of the 202x's to be a lot different, in terms of which companies are dominant.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  9. Re:The Future by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    Not as long as companies believe facsimile can be accepted as having legal standing but e-mailed scanned images do not

  10. Based on history, it'll turn around again by jht · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The trend in IT since day 1 has been to alternate waves of centralization (Mainframe, client-server, cloud) with waves of decentralization (PC, workstation). Really, it'll probably be like it is now, just more so. Firms with very simple needs will use cloud-based mail and sharing solutions, firms with more need for customization and/or performance will run their own servers. If they are large enough to justify the expense, they'll hire an IT staff, otherwise they will use companies like mine when needed. Computers themselves will still need support, even if all the data is in a server farm somewhere. Not to mention that cloud computing assumes Internet that's always there and always working.

    Wireless will become more important, but wired will still be used when viable because it's faster and more reliable (plus every wired computer is one less tapping shared spectrum). Windows will continue to suck less, Macs the same, and Linux will keep being just a couple of years away from desktop usage.

    The wildcard is the emergence of the iPad (not tablets in general yet - the market so far has decreed that no tablet other than the iPad matters thus far). iPads alone won't redefine the IT business, but if any other platform takes hold to even close to the degree the iPad has thus far then tablets may finally become a viable part of the IT environment - ant that has the potential to redefine how applications are used and support is provided.

    --
    -- Josh Turiel
    "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
  11. the chump U.S. IT workers by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the downturn after the executive branch allowed (neocon agenda facilitating) sept 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. governemt allowed a massive wave of H1B immigrants to drive IT salaries downward. Then the IRS enacted rules to make it extraordinarily difficult for engineer or IT worker to be independent consultant, rather saying such a person was in most cases an "employee" and subject to such taxes and rules. Then certain consulting firms owned by those of a certain ethnic group were the preferred ones to get outsourced IT work as companies reduced internal IT staff. This is just one tiny piece of a larger picture, where a very small group of wealthy elite, with most of the world's governments in their pocket, are building their New World Order.

  12. Wireless? Really? by cforciea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I nearly fell out of my chair laughing about wireless precluding the need for network engineers. Do you have even the slightest clue what your network engineers do? I'll give you a hint: not cable runs. You can get some guy making less than $15 an hour to pull cables through walls and climb in attics. Why would you need somebody with any technical inclination at all to do that?

    Your network engineers are there for ensuring cross-node connectivity and security. When I set up your routes, manage your IPSEC tunnels, and design your firewall rules, I don't give two shits about what you are using for physical connectivity. You could have some cups attached together with strings and it wouldn't change my network design.

    In fact, wireless gives me more work to do. Wireless setup, while easy, takes more configuration than plugging a wire into a port. And if your building is of any size and thick construction, I'm going to require a lot more networking nodes to service the whole thing adequately than I need when I can run 300 feet in any direction with a cable. Which means if your douchebag veeps want to be able to walk around the building with their iThingies, I have to make sure the pieces of junk can connect to any wifi hotspot in the building, which is its own set of headaches.

    And then there's security. Wireless is an external attack vendor. Yes, it's cute that you think that encrypting your radio signals makes it impossible to eavesdrop. It's even more awesome when somebody somewhere demands that I reduce encryption levels because some older device they have can't even handle WPA2/AES. But here's the thing: bad guys can now sit out in the parking lot and collect your encrypted traffic undetectably. If they use some directional antennas and some feed horns, they might even be able to get farther away. After that, they can sit back and try to brute force your wireless key using their GPUs from the comfort of their homes. After that, they could perform corporate espionage from the cafe next door and if they play their cards right, there is not a damn thing you can do to even tell they are doing it.

    I have never set up wireless that was directly attached to somebody's corporate network. When I set up a wifi hotspot at somebody's business, it gives them access to the internet and the internet only. They can securely VPN after that if they want to get to company data.

    Does this all still sound like you can just plug in some Linksys routers you got from Fry's and fire your networking guy?

  13. Re:Better technology = less work by gregor-e · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wouldn't say better technology == less work. Rather, better technology == more efficient creation of wealth. An automated factory that cranks out a fleet of cars every day, and only requires one person to push the 'start' or 'stop' button is effectively magnifying the productivity of that one person to a level that now requires thousands of people. That one person can create tens of millions of dollars in wealth per day, in current economic terms. If their pay is proportionate to this level of productivity, then they may personally expect to be able to spend at least ones of millions of dollars per day, in current terms, enabling them to wake every morning to a newly constructed and furnished house, if that's their desire. Such a house might be provided by a subscription to the automated house-constructing service operated by their neighbor.

    Of course, pushing the 'start' or 'stop' button is effectively make-work, since it could be automated as well. The rising tide of skill displacement will inevitably force a choice upon us: Either create millions of make-work 'jobs', for which people are paid ridiculous sums for doing essentially nothing, or simply pay everyone a base stipend, simply for living, so that they can continue to purchase things from the automated factories, making the factory owners ever more disproportionately wealthy.

  14. Re:Better technology = less work by sjames · · Score: 2

    The problem we have now is that the guy pushing the button doesn't get the million dollars either, the absentee owner does. The button pusher gets minimum wage right up until the automated system costs one cent per year less than he does. Then he's out.

    In a rational world, we would celebrate having 10% unemployment since that would mean we could all knock off at noon on Friday and all the work still gets done and everyone makes a living. Unfortunately, instead we have an all or nothing system where some get asked to work too much overtime and do more with (and for) less while others can't find work.

  15. Re:Better technology = less work by sjames · · Score: 2

    And the rest of us who only through accident of birth didn't happen to have any capital should just starve?

    I didn't say the owner deserves nothing, just that he doesn't deserve the whole thing. A lot of people got stuck working a lot harder for a lot less so his daddy could give him the money he risked so a lot more people could work a lot harder to make sure he got it all back.

    You seem anxious to denigrate the work of the productive class without which the absentee owner would be forced to try eating his money since nobody would be growing food or driving the truck that brings it to him.

    Based on the results so far of the last meltdown, it appears that it's the middle and lower classes that get to take the really big risks, but got no choice in the matter and none of the rewards for it.

  16. Re:Better technology = less work by sjames · · Score: 2

    At the same time, we need to find some way to ease the pain for the humans whose labor we celebrate the displacement of. The current plan of tossing them on the scrapheap creates a lot of problems.

    I don't begrudge Ford his profit so long as he doesn't begrudge workers their wages (and he didn't). Consider though the fact that people ACTUALLY dared to use the phrase "jobless recovery" in this latest round of economic woes and you'll see how much respect there is for the workman's wages or well being today.

  17. I can't predict the future, but .... by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been in I.T. long enough to have a few guesses.

    IMHO, the "cloud" push will largely turn out to be little more than a fad or phase. I'm not saying it will go away; rather, businesses will go through initiatives to move as much as possible into the cloud, only to discover some serious disadvantages over time which cause most of them to pull back. Eventually, I think you'll see it stabilize into a situation where many people have at least ONE application (Exchange being a really good candidate) in the cloud, while still maintaining local I.T. infrastructure and servers for other things.

    I know where I work now, for example, one of our issues is limited bandwidth. We can't get cable Internet without paying close to $15,000 in expenses to roll the cable out to our location first, and high speed DSL isn't an option either. We're stuck with T1 circuits, and currently, a 3mbit bonded T1 pair is around $700 per month (even higher if I didn't really shop around for the lowest price). Given that, it makes no sense to put our mission critical apps out in the cloud, where everyone would vie for that 3mbit of bandwidth to run them, AND still need it for regular Internet downloads and surfing.

    But even if you HAVE cheap broadband, there are always questions like data security. (Say your cloud provider goes out of business. What guarantee do you have they'll really wipe all the hard drives and backups holding your data when they liquidate all their equipment?) Furthermore, as the cloud gets more popular, I think you'll see more instances of outages/downtime to go with it. Whether it's really warranted or not, businesses are going to get nervous when the execs read about the latest outage someplace, and start asking what their I.T. departments are doing to ensure it doesn't impact them. The most cost-effective and practical answer is going to involve replication and running some local hardware, IMO -- again ensuring your I.T. staff has to be retained.

    But ultimately, I think the BIGGEST reasons most companies need to retain some I.T. staff is the user training and support/hand-holding that's expected. The vast majority of employees are NOT that computer-savvy, yet they're asked to spend a lot of time using a computer in their workplace. That demand comes with a hidden cost. Either they pay a premium up-front to only hire people with a high level of computer skills, or they pay by way of retaining I.T. "help desk" and "support specialist" staffers who come running when Lisa in accounting jams up the laser printer trying to run checks, or Joe needs to know how to sum several columns in an Excel spreadsheet. None of that is going to change if the apps are hosted off-site instead of on-site.