I can definitely see where you're coming from. I leave in both the world of software development and system administration and in both the Windows and Linux platforms.
In both worlds there are more and more tools that make it possible for someone without core skills to intervene.
Someone (I can't remember whom) was saying "Java was made so that anyone can be a programmer. The problem with it is that everyone can be a programmer."
I have seen a whole lot of software, both OSS and proprietary, developed using what I call "The Lego Model". It's quality speaks to it. As an example, I recently did some development around Drupal (which happens to be a fairly big and well supported project). There are still major flaws in it's core design and architecture. I am not trying to badmouth OSS developments as I have seen the same problems in proprietary applications as well.
What I'm trying to say is, with the appropriate tools many can nowadays become "programmers" or "sys-admins". But take Eclipse, or Netbeans or VisualStudio away and give them vi. They'll take a day to write 5 lines of crappy code if they can figure how to use vi. Same for "sys-admins". They'll be fine as long as the core of the system works and the problem matches their "fix it script". Put them in front of a non-trivial, non-scripted issue and they're lost. This is when it becomes apparent that there's a difference between sys-admin and tech-support level 1 or 2.
The way I see it is that certain tasks that use to be sys admin tasks are moving down a level or two because there are tools to make that possible. Is this making the sys-admin redundant? I think not. Same for developers. There are certain tasks that you can hand down a level or two at this point. Is this going to make the experienced and skillful developer redundant? I think not. It will simply allow him to focus where he is needed most: at the core, design, architecture and algorithm development, while, in the meantime the rest of the team can translate UML or algorithms into code. (I would certainly enforce thorough review of the code just as I would certainly have a sys-admin supervise the tech-support staff that handles imaging.)
I don't see a problem with all this at all. It simply shifts tasks from one side to another and as many have already said here, it addresses the issue of reducing downtime to a minimum. And yes, the sys-admin can then take the time to find a fix or a solution offline without the management team behind his back going: "Are we there yet?".
People's jobs have been changing and been created and been made redundant one way of another ever since. I remember a time when someone could be a "computer operator" not too long ago. Hopefully we will adapt to the changes instead of staying and screaming "they've cut my legs off".
I cannot agree more. I top that with quoting the "more autistic then realistic" to the idea of Linux adoption on the desktop and recommend alternative OS's to everyone you know.
This whole story reminds me of Jim Carry's performance in Liar Liar. Quote:
Fisher: Do you know what I'm going to do about this?
Policeman: What?
Fisher: Nothing, because if I take it to the small claims court it will only drain 8 hours out of my life. And you probably won't show up and even if I finally got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway, so, what I'm gonna do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk then bend over and take it up the tale pipe
Policeman: You've been here before haven't you?
In fact the whole Linux story as far as I was there to see it, about 10-15 years, seems spiced with such sort of frustration. We keep repeating the same old slogans and meanwhile Microsoft Windows, in spite of security wholes, monopolistic and big brother practices and so on and so forth, is drifting away in the future compared to Linux. I remember when I first installed Linux on my home computer,I think a RedHat 2, it compared fairly well(after I managed to get X running) with Windows I think 95 at that time. Windows now supports a lot more then Linux. I know this is a result of hardware vendors not cooperating with the developers. But the end result is the same. I wish I could tell my parents and sister to load Ubuntu or Suse. I can't. They want to be able to use video on Yahoo Messenger and Skype. It's just not there. I tried myself gnome meeting to realize that getting a bloody USB webcam to work under Linux requires 3 pages of reading and a kernel makeover. And that only to be able to capture something. Let alone I will need some software for video conferencing. This is just an example. There are many...Would I dare recommend my company a switch to Linux? Maybe if I really, really hated them. In conclusion. Microsoft will implement DRM (also because unfortunately most Microsoft customers - home or business - do not read this post and there are few other media channels raising awareness of the dangers) and we will all do, well, read the quotes above again.
"I am not popular enough to be different"
Homer J. Simpson
Slashdot Mirror
I can definitely see where you're coming from. I leave in both the world of software development and system administration and in both the Windows and Linux platforms. In both worlds there are more and more tools that make it possible for someone without core skills to intervene. Someone (I can't remember whom) was saying "Java was made so that anyone can be a programmer. The problem with it is that everyone can be a programmer." I have seen a whole lot of software, both OSS and proprietary, developed using what I call "The Lego Model". It's quality speaks to it. As an example, I recently did some development around Drupal (which happens to be a fairly big and well supported project). There are still major flaws in it's core design and architecture. I am not trying to badmouth OSS developments as I have seen the same problems in proprietary applications as well. What I'm trying to say is, with the appropriate tools many can nowadays become "programmers" or "sys-admins". But take Eclipse, or Netbeans or VisualStudio away and give them vi. They'll take a day to write 5 lines of crappy code if they can figure how to use vi. Same for "sys-admins". They'll be fine as long as the core of the system works and the problem matches their "fix it script". Put them in front of a non-trivial, non-scripted issue and they're lost. This is when it becomes apparent that there's a difference between sys-admin and tech-support level 1 or 2. The way I see it is that certain tasks that use to be sys admin tasks are moving down a level or two because there are tools to make that possible. Is this making the sys-admin redundant? I think not. Same for developers. There are certain tasks that you can hand down a level or two at this point. Is this going to make the experienced and skillful developer redundant? I think not. It will simply allow him to focus where he is needed most: at the core, design, architecture and algorithm development, while, in the meantime the rest of the team can translate UML or algorithms into code. (I would certainly enforce thorough review of the code just as I would certainly have a sys-admin supervise the tech-support staff that handles imaging.) I don't see a problem with all this at all. It simply shifts tasks from one side to another and as many have already said here, it addresses the issue of reducing downtime to a minimum. And yes, the sys-admin can then take the time to find a fix or a solution offline without the management team behind his back going: "Are we there yet?". People's jobs have been changing and been created and been made redundant one way of another ever since. I remember a time when someone could be a "computer operator" not too long ago. Hopefully we will adapt to the changes instead of staying and screaming "they've cut my legs off".
I'd say change it to "Don't Panic". Something like: ERROR 42: Don't Panic.
is the /. crowd so out of topics that you need to take it to the intellectual level of a 50c magazine capable of nothing but celebrity gossip?
I cannot agree more. I top that with quoting the "more autistic then realistic" to the idea of Linux adoption on the desktop and recommend alternative OS's to everyone you know. This whole story reminds me of Jim Carry's performance in Liar Liar. Quote: Fisher: Do you know what I'm going to do about this? Policeman: What? Fisher: Nothing, because if I take it to the small claims court it will only drain 8 hours out of my life. And you probably won't show up and even if I finally got the judgment you'd just stiff me anyway, so, what I'm gonna do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk then bend over and take it up the tale pipe Policeman: You've been here before haven't you? In fact the whole Linux story as far as I was there to see it, about 10-15 years, seems spiced with such sort of frustration. We keep repeating the same old slogans and meanwhile Microsoft Windows, in spite of security wholes, monopolistic and big brother practices and so on and so forth, is drifting away in the future compared to Linux. I remember when I first installed Linux on my home computer ,I think a RedHat 2, it compared fairly well(after I managed to get X running) with Windows I think 95 at that time. Windows now supports a lot more then Linux. I know this is a result of hardware vendors not cooperating with the developers. But the end result is the same. I wish I could tell my parents and sister to load Ubuntu or Suse. I can't. They want to be able to use video on Yahoo Messenger and Skype. It's just not there. I tried myself gnome meeting to realize that getting a bloody USB webcam to work under Linux requires 3 pages of reading and a kernel makeover. And that only to be able to capture something. Let alone I will need some software for video conferencing. This is just an example. There are many...Would I dare recommend my company a switch to Linux? Maybe if I really, really hated them. In conclusion. Microsoft will implement DRM (also because unfortunately most Microsoft customers - home or business - do not read this post and there are few other media channels raising awareness of the dangers) and we will all do, well, read the quotes above again.
"I am not popular enough to be different"
Homer J. Simpson