"I think that DevOps was dreamed up by a bunch of bean-counters (CIOs, CFOs, Accountants, etc.) to reduce headcount and make the developers (the "Dev" part) be responsible also for deployment and operation (the "Ops" part) of the infrastructure and systems."
If you spent five minutes researching the history, you would know that you are entirely wrong.
This is going to sound insanely douchey (and I apologize in advance) but everything you have said is 100% wrong. At no point has Etsy ever run in AWS.
The only thing I can think of that might have had you confused is that John Allspaw (now CTO at Etsy) and Paul Hammond, presented at an early Velocity conference about work at Flickr:
Disclaimer, I work for enStratus and had a hand in the support for Puppet/Chef in enStratus.
I'm not going to get in a religious war over Chef vs. Puppet but one thing enStratus DOES have is support for both Puppet and Chef. And not some sort of bastardized support either:
Note that the Puppet support requires a small agent on the Puppet master but that was unavoidable. Puppet is great but it lacks a proper API that third party services can integrate with. Regardless of which CM system you use, enStratus punts all configuration management tasks to those tools natively and gets out of the way. In the case of Puppet, we use the agent to pregenerate your cert, sign that cert and also add the node the Puppet Dashboard ENC. When the newly provisioned node comes online, we kick off a normal puppet run ('puppet agent --onetime --no-daemonize --detailed-exitcodes --logdest=/some/logfile' if your curious). We don't set puppet to run via cron or as a daemon. That's an internal policy matter for you to decide and should be driven by your puppet modules and not some third party.
I read the whole post and everything after the hard numbers was irrelevant. The point was that if someone is living on that meager of an income, television service of ANY kind is the last thing they need to worry about.
Cable television isn't going to increase your earning potential unless you happen to fancy yourself the next Cake Boss.
For the record, I don't have cable. I use an OTA antennae to get the few shows we watch with the kids - mostly PBS. The rest we get from Netflix either streaming on the xbox or shipped.
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
You were presented with the confirmation when you installed the application. You should always read the requested permissions list before installing an application. If you're downloading a game, why does it need access to activate the phone? Legitimate developers will frequently leave comments and notes in the description about WHY they need additional permissions.
Kinect is exciting and I'll get it but the biggest announcement had to be the ESPN agreement. That's a cable killer right there depending on how blackout/regional rules apply.
If an application (enterprise or not) doesn't have a mechanism that handles stale connections(connection pool or not), it might not want to call itself an application.
The problem comes from the concept of "unlimited". Evidently, in legalese unlimited means "reasonable for x percentage of customers" and not "unlimited".
The cell phone companies should simply be forced to stop using the term "unlimited" in advertising. It's false advertising under every common use of the word "unlimited". If you can't provide true "unlimited" access on your network, don't advertise that you can. It's that damn simple.
Murdoch knows EXACTLY how the new technologies work. At least at a high-level. He doesn't need to know the detailed tech:
1 - Google indexes content 2 - Google links to content that is has indexed
Your statement " Half the time I don't even realise which site I'm reading the news on" is exactly the problem the newspapers have right now. It's not going away either. News is a commodity. Unless it's a local story, editorial or some sort of investigative reporting the news is the same across ALL papers. Hell, I work for a newspaper. Everyone pulls in news from the wire services. How many times has google sent you to jrandom midwest paper about a hot topic only to realize that the story was sourced from AP or Reuters? I can go to 20 other sites and get the EXACT same story.
He knows how it works, he just doesn't LIKE it. As someone else said, newspapers have been double-dipping for the lifetime of the product. Selling subscriptions on the front side and ads on the back. The problem is that people are willing to accept ad-supported content online in exchange for free access but I'll be damned if I'm going to patronize a web site that continues to show me ads AFTER I've become a subscriber. That attitude is simply counter to how newspapers operate. Look at the demographics of newspaper subscribers these days. The largest population of subscribers are literally DYING (something like 40% of the subscriber base is over the age of 60).
The only people who really like the current crop of offerings for print-to-ipad conversions are, surprise, newspapermen. We had a big meeting with our editor a few weeks back and he was going ON and ON about how amazing it was to read his old hometown paper on the iPad because it was just like the paper he could get there (ads and all). Seriously?
One reason the WSJ actually works as a paywall is that they have specialized content and analysis but that won't fly for the majority of print outlets making the jump.
I find this out 6 weeks late. When did having kids become like buying technology?
Seriously though, there are some cases where that might not be possible. My first son was an emergency c-section. I don't know how long it was before he started breathing but it felt like forever.
Thing2 was a scheduled c-section and I had him in my arms almost immediately. I honestly don't know how quickly they clamped.
Broadcom doesn't release the non-x86 chipset drivers as opensource. It's a bit more complex than that but that's the gist of it.
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
Nobody is stopping you NOW. That's the problem with the environment Apple is creating and to some degree enforcing.
Apple (and most companies for that matter) are arbitrary and frivolous in what they decide to get upset about. All it takes is for someone at Apple HQ to get a stick up his ass and iPad/iPod jailbreaking is toast.
How long did people sell modded game consoles before the manufacturers decided to come after them? How long did HTC have SenseUI before Apple decided to sue them?
People are capricious. The DMCA is still a law.
Mind you I hold the same grudge against Microsoft and Amazon in regards to the platforms they have. However Apple is the only one of those three vendors that has a top to bottom stack and has the backing of major media outlets to push the product.
I do fear the end of tinkering and wonder but that desire will always be there in some people. What won't always be there is the ability to do so because of legislation.
Re:It's not a computer, it's a living-room applian
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
Oh really? How will you create applications for this magical new paradigm? On said magical new device?
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
The biggest problem I have is the attitude that something like the iPad is creating. I do NOT want to live in the world where Apple is trying to take us. Assuming that you are the type to "tinker"/write software for your "iDevice", you would have to do it:
- On Apple hardware - Using Apple software - Under Apple terms - With Apple oversight
That's not the tech world I want to live in. Sure, Apple is freaking awesome for pushing open standards on the web but everything else they do screams closed. I guarantee you that the day HTML5 supports something that is directly opposed to Apple, they won't support it. Yes Hulu, Netflix, CBS, ABC and all the other apps are nice for when you have a network connection but they don't directly compete with iTunes for TV shows because I don't need a network connection.
The closest thing that competes right now is the Kindle app and I can guarantee that Apple is only allowing it for now because they don't want to attract any unwanted attention.
You can argue that someone could easily start up a project that competes with Apple down the road but do *YOU* have a patent portfolio big enough to hold em off? I didn't think so.
That's what scares me most about the iPad. Ignore all the shortcomings, those of us with a bit of foresight know EXACTLY where Apple wants to go with this.
In its current form, the iPad CANNOT replace a computer but not for any of the reasons listed. The reason it cannot replace a computer is because you have to HAVE one to use it. I'll mirror my comments I've said elsewhere:
"All system updates have to happen via iTunes. Until it has OTA updating, you still need to have a computer that can run the bloated mess that is iTunes. So yeah, give it to grandma since she doesn't have a computer. It works great until there's a mandatory system update that prevents her from accessing the app store. You want to get stuff OFF the system? Pages documents? Spreadsheets? Gotta have iTunes to do the offloading and conversion"
It's that simple. If all you want is a cheap, fast, easy way to browse the internet then MAYBE the iPad is it but you simply cannot give this to grandma and never expect to have to support it again. At a minimum, you'll still have to either setup Wifi and an internet connection as well as a machine for updates or you'll have to hope she lives in an area with good 3G coverage. Even then you'll still need another computer.
The ONLY reason I would want something like an iPad is for Skype but it doesn't have a front facing camera. A device like this (if it had a front facing camera and OTA updates) WOULD be perfect for grandkid Skype sessions. I honestly don't care about the lack of Flash support but I can understand how that simply is a deal breaker for its most prominent use - browsing the web. As an ebook reader, the weight really is a negative as well. My wife is going to be in bed for 2 weeks recovering from another c-section and while I really did consider buying an iPad for her the weight really can't compare to her Kindle.
Really, the iPad is trying to bridge a gap with an incomplete product. Kudos to Apple for trying something new but outside of the whole tech aspect (Apple ecosystem, lack of tinkerability, restricted usage, no upgrade ability) there are plenty of reasons that the iPad doesn't make sense yet.
Sorry for not posting sooner. Sick child in the house.
That's a bold assertion. What happens when they spend all the money on consumer goods produced in Asia?
Irrelevant. Those goods may be produced in Asia but they are sold by people with jobs here - advertisers, retail staff and so forth. I'm not up for getting into a massive discussion about it but take a look at http://cafehayek.com/myths-and-fallacies and some of the articles there. You should have more respect for his opinion than mine. To answer the second question, I'm not an economist but he is.
I find it interesting that you mention "Even the Austrians..." because I was just reading about that today. I really need to use some sort of web clipping addon.
Anyway, I would have to say I align myself pretty strongly with Hayek but my personal philosophy is whatever provides the greatest amount of individual economic freedom.
And I'm still looking for a good "unbiased" source of information on government spending. I hesitate to link to a third-party news source (especially News Busters) quoting Milton Friedman from a book, however this link has a subsection that is of interest:
In a such a short article, there's not much meat but I'm interested in seeing any corroboration and/or rebutal to the theories at the end.
Taken in light of the Friedman statements and the basic reality of where government gets its money would seem to suggest that there IS a very small window where government COULD stimulate the economy.
However that window is smaller, IMHO, than trying to hit a two-meter thermal exhaust port. On one side (spending too early) it's wasteful and takes money from the private sector. On the other side, you end up with massive inflation.
I think the safer course of action with those odds is to leave the money with the people who know how to spend it best in their situation, the people who earned it.
Calculating WHERE the money comes from is not hard at all. (I'm speaking strictly about the US here)
Government is not a wealth producer.
I don't mean that in the generic, libertarian, anti-Fed sense. I mean that in the strictest sense.
Every dollar that government has came directly from the private sector.
Government produces nothing. Government provides services (quite poorly and less efficiently than the private sector, IMHO) in "exchange" for Taxes but based on the various budget shortfalls you can make two assumptions:
- Government isn't "charging" enough for those services or - We're getting a terrible bargain as citizens.
Also, there's some disagreement on the impact of wartime spending:
The states don't have to have control over monetary policy to be responsible public servants. Now it's possible (as I said, I was still trying to find the numbers) that spending by state and local governments has a greater return but it still doesn't match up to spending by the private sector.
If you equate spending with fiscal power, then yes, I am asking states to reduce. Politicians in general are like kids in a candy store when they have money.
I can speak from experience here in Georgia having a wife who works for the state. I know all the dirty tricks they pull to pilfer money that was "allocated" to one "project" and then spent elsewhere.
The fact that not all states are facing budget shortfalls* should maybe be an indicator that there are ways to provide a basic functional state goverment without increased government spending or new taxation.
I'm glad Texas got it right so far. Most people forget the second half of the equation in cutting/eliminating taxes which is to restrict government spending. I'm interested to see, long term, how this fairs for Texas and Austin particularly. So far it seems to be going swimmingly. Right now the economic freedom there is amazing.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think that DevOps was dreamed up by a bunch of bean-counters (CIOs, CFOs, Accountants, etc.) to reduce headcount and make the developers (the "Dev" part) be responsible also for deployment and operation (the "Ops" part) of the infrastructure and systems."
If you spent five minutes researching the history, you would know that you are entirely wrong.
This is going to sound insanely douchey (and I apologize in advance) but everything you have said is 100% wrong. At no point has Etsy ever run in AWS.
The only thing I can think of that might have had you confused is that John Allspaw (now CTO at Etsy) and Paul Hammond, presented at an early Velocity conference about work at Flickr:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That talk was pretty seminal in the DevOps community but in no way has any bearing on anything you said.
Disclaimer, I work for enStratus and had a hand in the support for Puppet/Chef in enStratus.
I'm not going to get in a religious war over Chef vs. Puppet but one thing enStratus DOES have is support for both Puppet and Chef. And not some sort of bastardized support either:
Chef - http://docs.enstratus.com/configuration_management/chef.html
Puppet - http://docs.enstratus.com/configuration_management/puppet.html
Note that the Puppet support requires a small agent on the Puppet master but that was unavoidable. Puppet is great but it lacks a proper API that third party services can integrate with. Regardless of which CM system you use, enStratus punts all configuration management tasks to those tools natively and gets out of the way. In the case of Puppet, we use the agent to pregenerate your cert, sign that cert and also add the node the Puppet Dashboard ENC. When the newly provisioned node comes online, we kick off a normal puppet run ('puppet agent --onetime --no-daemonize --detailed-exitcodes --logdest=/some/logfile' if your curious). We don't set puppet to run via cron or as a daemon. That's an internal policy matter for you to decide and should be driven by your puppet modules and not some third party.
Rob,
Thanks for Slashdot and the impact it made in my career early on.
I read the whole post and everything after the hard numbers was irrelevant. The point was that if someone is living on that meager of an income, television service of ANY kind is the last thing they need to worry about.
Cable television isn't going to increase your earning potential unless you happen to fancy yourself the next Cake Boss.
For the record, I don't have cable. I use an OTA antennae to get the few shows we watch with the kids - mostly PBS. The rest we get from Netflix either streaming on the xbox or shipped.
"For some people that's half a week's take home pay."
If someone is only making $170 a week in take home pay, maybe they should stop paying for fucking cable. There are bigger priorities at that point.
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
You were presented with the confirmation when you installed the application. You should always read the requested permissions list before installing an application. If you're downloading a game, why does it need access to activate the phone? Legitimate developers will frequently leave comments and notes in the description about WHY they need additional permissions.
Actually I think it will be awesome for my 2 year old.
So yeah, it's pretty exciting.
Okay that blows because I don't HAVE a cable provider. I'm not even sure who services my neighborhood.
Kinect is exciting and I'll get it but the biggest announcement had to be the ESPN agreement. That's a cable killer right there depending on how blackout/regional rules apply.
If an application (enterprise or not) doesn't have a mechanism that handles stale connections(connection pool or not), it might not want to call itself an application.
Seriously.
The problem comes from the concept of "unlimited". Evidently, in legalese unlimited means "reasonable for x percentage of customers" and not "unlimited".
The cell phone companies should simply be forced to stop using the term "unlimited" in advertising. It's false advertising under every common use of the word "unlimited". If you can't provide true "unlimited" access on your network, don't advertise that you can. It's that damn simple.
Unless Crysis 2 has Thomas the Tank Engine as an unlockable character, he probably won't be interested ;)
Murdoch knows EXACTLY how the new technologies work. At least at a high-level. He doesn't need to know the detailed tech:
1 - Google indexes content
2 - Google links to content that is has indexed
Your statement " Half the time I don't even realise which site I'm reading the news on" is exactly the problem the newspapers have right now. It's not going away either. News is a commodity. Unless it's a local story, editorial or some sort of investigative reporting the news is the same across ALL papers. Hell, I work for a newspaper. Everyone pulls in news from the wire services. How many times has google sent you to jrandom midwest paper about a hot topic only to realize that the story was sourced from AP or Reuters? I can go to 20 other sites and get the EXACT same story.
He knows how it works, he just doesn't LIKE it. As someone else said, newspapers have been double-dipping for the lifetime of the product. Selling subscriptions on the front side and ads on the back. The problem is that people are willing to accept ad-supported content online in exchange for free access but I'll be damned if I'm going to patronize a web site that continues to show me ads AFTER I've become a subscriber. That attitude is simply counter to how newspapers operate. Look at the demographics of newspaper subscribers these days. The largest population of subscribers are literally DYING (something like 40% of the subscriber base is over the age of 60).
The only people who really like the current crop of offerings for print-to-ipad conversions are, surprise, newspapermen. We had a big meeting with our editor a few weeks back and he was going ON and ON about how amazing it was to read his old hometown paper on the iPad because it was just like the paper he could get there (ads and all). Seriously?
One reason the WSJ actually works as a paywall is that they have specialized content and analysis but that won't fly for the majority of print outlets making the jump.
I find this out 6 weeks late. When did having kids become like buying technology?
Seriously though, there are some cases where that might not be possible. My first son was an emergency c-section. I don't know how long it was before he started breathing but it felt like forever.
Thing2 was a scheduled c-section and I had him in my arms almost immediately. I honestly don't know how quickly they clamped.
Broadcom doesn't release the non-x86 chipset drivers as opensource. It's a bit more complex than that but that's the gist of it.
Nobody is stopping you NOW. That's the problem with the environment Apple is creating and to some degree enforcing.
Apple (and most companies for that matter) are arbitrary and frivolous in what they decide to get upset about. All it takes is for someone at Apple HQ to get a stick up his ass and iPad/iPod jailbreaking is toast.
How long did people sell modded game consoles before the manufacturers decided to come after them? How long did HTC have SenseUI before Apple decided to sue them?
People are capricious. The DMCA is still a law.
Mind you I hold the same grudge against Microsoft and Amazon in regards to the platforms they have. However Apple is the only one of those three vendors that has a top to bottom stack and has the backing of major media outlets to push the product.
I do fear the end of tinkering and wonder but that desire will always be there in some people. What won't always be there is the ability to do so because of legislation.
Oh really? How will you create applications for this magical new paradigm? On said magical new device?
The biggest problem I have is the attitude that something like the iPad is creating. I do NOT want to live in the world where Apple is trying to take us. Assuming that you are the type to "tinker"/write software for your "iDevice", you would have to do it:
- On Apple hardware
- Using Apple software
- Under Apple terms
- With Apple oversight
That's not the tech world I want to live in. Sure, Apple is freaking awesome for pushing open standards on the web but everything else they do screams closed. I guarantee you that the day HTML5 supports something that is directly opposed to Apple, they won't support it. Yes Hulu, Netflix, CBS, ABC and all the other apps are nice for when you have a network connection but they don't directly compete with iTunes for TV shows because I don't need a network connection.
The closest thing that competes right now is the Kindle app and I can guarantee that Apple is only allowing it for now because they don't want to attract any unwanted attention.
You can argue that someone could easily start up a project that competes with Apple down the road but do *YOU* have a patent portfolio big enough to hold em off? I didn't think so.
That's what scares me most about the iPad. Ignore all the shortcomings, those of us with a bit of foresight know EXACTLY where Apple wants to go with this.
In its current form, the iPad CANNOT replace a computer but not for any of the reasons listed.
The reason it cannot replace a computer is because you have to HAVE one to use it. I'll mirror my comments I've said elsewhere:
"All system updates have to happen via iTunes. Until it has OTA updating, you still need to have a computer that can run the bloated mess that is iTunes. So yeah, give it to grandma since she doesn't have a computer. It works great until there's a mandatory system update that prevents her from accessing the app store. You want to get stuff OFF the system? Pages documents? Spreadsheets? Gotta have iTunes to do the offloading and conversion"
It's that simple. If all you want is a cheap, fast, easy way to browse the internet then MAYBE the iPad is it but you simply cannot give this to grandma and never expect to have to support it again. At a minimum, you'll still have to either setup Wifi and an internet connection as well as a machine for updates or you'll have to hope she lives in an area with good 3G coverage. Even then you'll still need another computer.
The ONLY reason I would want something like an iPad is for Skype but it doesn't have a front facing camera. A device like this (if it had a front facing camera and OTA updates) WOULD be perfect for grandkid Skype sessions. I honestly don't care about the lack of Flash support but I can understand how that simply is a deal breaker for its most prominent use - browsing the web. As an ebook reader, the weight really is a negative as well. My wife is going to be in bed for 2 weeks recovering from another c-section and while I really did consider buying an iPad for her the weight really can't compare to her Kindle.
Really, the iPad is trying to bridge a gap with an incomplete product. Kudos to Apple for trying something new but outside of the whole tech aspect (Apple ecosystem, lack of tinkerability, restricted usage, no upgrade ability) there are plenty of reasons that the iPad doesn't make sense yet.
Sorry for not posting sooner. Sick child in the house.
That's a bold assertion. What happens when they spend all the money on consumer goods produced in Asia?
Irrelevant. Those goods may be produced in Asia but they are sold by people with jobs here - advertisers, retail staff and so forth. I'm not up for getting into a massive discussion about it but take a look at http://cafehayek.com/myths-and-fallacies and some of the articles there. You should have more respect for his opinion than mine. To answer the second question, I'm not an economist but he is.
I find it interesting that you mention "Even the Austrians..." because I was just reading about that today. I really need to use some sort of web clipping addon.
Anyway, I would have to say I align myself pretty strongly with Hayek but my personal philosophy is whatever provides the greatest amount of individual economic freedom.
And I'm still looking for a good "unbiased" source of information on government spending. I hesitate to link to a third-party news source (especially News Busters) quoting Milton Friedman from a book, however this link has a subsection that is of interest:
http://newsbusters.org/node/27813/print
My google-fu isn't strong enough at this late hour but I also found an interesting statement:
"When the economy is doing fine, he estimates, $1 of government spending yields 40 cents in extra production and related jobs." - http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/does-the-return-on-government-spending-triple-in-a-depression/19200069/
In a such a short article, there's not much meat but I'm interested in seeing any corroboration and/or rebutal to the theories at the end.
Taken in light of the Friedman statements and the basic reality of where government gets its money would seem to suggest that there IS a very small window where government COULD stimulate the economy.
However that window is smaller, IMHO, than trying to hit a two-meter thermal exhaust port. On one side (spending too early) it's wasteful and takes money from the private sector. On the other side, you end up with massive inflation.
I think the safer course of action with those odds is to leave the money with the people who know how to spend it best in their situation, the people who earned it.
Calculating WHERE the money comes from is not hard at all. (I'm speaking strictly about the US here)
Government is not a wealth producer.
I don't mean that in the generic, libertarian, anti-Fed sense. I mean that in the strictest sense.
Every dollar that government has came directly from the private sector.
Government produces nothing. Government provides services (quite poorly and less efficiently than the private sector, IMHO) in "exchange" for Taxes but based on the various budget shortfalls you can make two assumptions:
- Government isn't "charging" enough for those services
or
- We're getting a terrible bargain as citizens.
Also, there's some disagreement on the impact of wartime spending:
http://reason.org/news/show/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor
I'll also look and see what the peer review was like on the paper quoted about negligible increase in consumption from wartime spending.
The states don't have to have control over monetary policy to be responsible public servants. Now it's possible (as I said, I was still trying to find the numbers) that spending by state and local governments has a greater return but it still doesn't match up to spending by the private sector.
If you equate spending with fiscal power, then yes, I am asking states to reduce. Politicians in general are like kids in a candy store when they have money.
I can speak from experience here in Georgia having a wife who works for the state. I know all the dirty tricks they pull to pilfer money that was "allocated" to one "project" and then spent elsewhere.
The fact that not all states are facing budget shortfalls* should maybe be an indicator that there are ways to provide a basic functional state goverment without increased government spending or new taxation.
* http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/State_budget_issues,_2009-2010
I'm glad Texas got it right so far. Most people forget the second half of the equation in cutting/eliminating taxes which is to restrict government spending. I'm interested to see, long term, how this fairs for Texas and Austin particularly. So far it seems to be going swimmingly. Right now the economic freedom there is amazing.