Admin roles are also dying with immutable infrastructure and HA. Designing a system that is immutable and highly available isn't expensive or time consuming on the cloud anymore.
But someone is still designing the initial system and someone (maybe the same person) is managing it.
Yeah so you don't have an admin here as you admit. You have an engineer designing the system and replacing the system if there is issues. It's all design and no maintenance. Maintenance is automated during build.
Not in the real world. That's a nice theory, but applies to effectively no one anywhere. In the real world, engineering almost always is a trivial effort that involves almost no time, skill or planning, and all the effort goes into years of administration that deals with that haphazard system.
That's completely false. Engineering is almost always a trivial effort......
It's completely true and I've given example after example. In the real world, engineering is generally done without planning or resources and it works enough for people to accept it. Then all the effort is hoisted onto administration. You can argue, but you can't deny that this is what 95%+ of the market does.
No you gave an example of FreeNAS and have completely ignored things like SRE where design upfront including architecture, engineering, coffee design, IaC, etc are all roles for the engineer. Immutability is vital and SREs are embedded in specific teams and only supporting that application.
Yes, but the difference is my example represents nearly the entire market. I didn't say that there weren't exceptions. But that's what they are.
Outside of F500 maybe but outside of F500 you don't normally have systems engineers and systems admins.
https://www.kent.ac.uk/careers/tests/computer-test.htm Well, of the first 8 questions I was able to answer, I got them right, but since I only answered 8, I was in the 12 and below range. I guess I practice what I preach to my saxophone students. "Accuracy over speed." 😛
@scottalanmiller What separates the two? er... What makes Webmin not enterprise friendly vs Cockpit? (it has been a LONG time since I've used webmin and I haven't used Cockpit yet).
Webmin is a "third party unsupported add on crutch." It's whole purpose is to make UNIX graphical without using the officially supported toolsets. While that in and off itself isn't "bad", it's bad conceptually. It's purpose is to be a crutch for people who won't learn how to run the system and ends up being just like FreeNAS or whatever - just limitations and risk layered on top of the OS.
Cockpit is different. It is part of the OS itself, not an add on. It's fully managed and supported by the team that makes the OS (Red Hat, in this case.) In this way it is like the Microsoft GUI interface - still not ideal as a management tool, but stable and supported.
That Webmin is a huge, dangerous catch all for management and Cockpit is a limited graphical view of capacity planning with a few very simplistic management tools also makes them very different. Cockpit is not meant to replace being a good admin, it's meant to give some graphical views where they make sense. Webmin is meant to let people run an OS that they don't understand.