The Death of Sysadmin



  • Okay I am high and I may be posted this topic twice. but they are killing us , they want move everything to
    k8s and cloud and GKE what next, those clouds dont neet maintenance, sure now it is expensive but surely in the upcoming years it will be cheap. It will be just developers and developers tools and cloud, push code to the cloud

    we are speeding it up, we are killing our job role



  • And they are using us to do it, how classy and heartless



  • How do those things not need system admins? If anything, it seems like the needs increase.



  • @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    push code to the cloud

    And who builds and runs the cloud? System admins.



  • @scottalanmiller

    nope, it will be a set of processes and cloud running by itself. all build by automation.

    The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
    back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.

    I think it all went down hill when DevOps role was created, and it became the new Sysadmin and then they easily killed that term and made SRE, site reliability engineer, and now SRE are basically ppl who know abit about everything and that frees developers to do developers work, but in short term everyone will be full stack dev and rely on cloud hosting platforms and FAAS and CAAS to run their code easily with high uptimes cause of stuff like GKE, and others.



  • @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller

    nope, it will be a set of processes and cloud running by itself. all build by automation.

    The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
    back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.

    I think it all went down hill when DevOps role was created, and it became the new Sysadmin and then they easily killed that term and made SRE, site reliability engineer, and now SRE are basically ppl who know abit about everything and that frees developers to do developers work, but in short term everyone will be full stack dev and rely on cloud hosting platforms and FAAS and CAAS to run their code easily with high uptimes cause of stuff like GKE, and others.

    Perhaps you should grow your skill set as technology changes and improves, instead of complaining you can't do the same job the same way your whole life.



  • @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    nope, it will be a set of processes and cloud running by itself. all build by automation

    Yeah, that's the imaginary world, but not reality.



  • @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
    back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.

    Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".



  • @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    but in short term everyone will be full stack dev and rely on cloud hosting platforms and FAAS and CAAS to run their code easily with high uptimes cause of stuff like GKE, and others.

    And cloud hosting platforms are run by system admins (or whatever label you want to slap on them.)



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
    back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.

    Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".

    Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now

    In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.



  • @IRJ said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
    back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.

    Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".

    Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now

    In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.

    And really, only barely different than we were back in 2006. DevOps isn't really new, just a new "brand name" on the same work that we did then. If we moved my 2006 environment into 2019 with zero changes, we'd call it devops.



  • Not good DevOps, but acceptable DevOps 🙂



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @IRJ said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
    back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.

    Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".

    Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now

    In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.

    And really, only barely different than we were back in 2006. DevOps isn't really new, just a new "brand name" on the same work that we did then. If we moved my 2006 environment into 2019 with zero changes, we'd call it devops.

    What were you using in 2006 for your CI/CD pipelines?



  • @Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @IRJ said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @Emad-R said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    The number of servers one sysadmin is handling is increasing and increasing, I think even you said it yourself.
    back in the day 1 sysadmin can manage = few servers, afterward it is 50-100, now it is expected to be able to manage 100-500. One day we wouldn't need to manage anything.

    Yes, but then the value and expertise of that system admin keep increasing, too. And there are loads and loads of private clouds. Each cloud is the new "computer".

    Exactly what we call DevOPs now is the new System Admin. They are higher paid and more knowledgeable. Things have been going this way for awhile so you should not be surprised. Imagine what you'd be worth if you had AWS / Azure certifications right now

    In fact, this is an opportunity for you to go this route. You have to leave the old mentality behind to grow in a new, ever changing environment.

    And really, only barely different than we were back in 2006. DevOps isn't really new, just a new "brand name" on the same work that we did then. If we moved my 2006 environment into 2019 with zero changes, we'd call it devops.

    What were you using in 2006 for your CI/CD pipelines?

    CI/CD is one of those new "long after DevOps was a thing" things. Even people doing DevOps were called DevOps before those were common. In 2006, it was insanely rare for even developers to use those things or be familiar with them. It's a very recent thing to start associating those with either field.



  • CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.

    It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.



  • @scottalanmiller

    CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles

    Uh what are the "other" approaches?



  • @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Uh what are the "other" approaches?

    Frequent Integration is more common, for example. If you work with developers, CI is something everyone knows, but the majority don't do. In fact, almost none do in the real world. Good ones might mostly do it, but the average developer isn't a good developer. The average development shop is still struggling with source control, CI isn't even on their horizon.



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Uh what are the "other" approaches?

    Frequent Integration is more common, for example. If you work with developers, CI is something everyone knows, but the majority don't do. In fact, almost none do in the real world. Good ones might mostly do it, but the average developer isn't a good developer. The average development shop is still struggling with source control, CI isn't even on their horizon.

    That's not an other. That's part of CI/CD.



  • Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.

    It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.

    Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.



  • @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.

    Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.



  • @Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.

    It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.

    Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.

    Um, duh. Agile is one approach to dev, one that promotes CI. I think you just stated by point, you are assuming one aspect of Agile dev and assuming that all DevOps comes from one bit of Agile dev, which isn't true at all.



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.

    Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.

    Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.



  • @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Uh what are the "other" approaches?

    Frequent Integration is more common, for example. If you work with developers, CI is something everyone knows, but the majority don't do. In fact, almost none do in the real world. Good ones might mostly do it, but the average developer isn't a good developer. The average development shop is still struggling with source control, CI isn't even on their horizon.

    That's not an other. That's part of CI/CD.

    That's the first I've heard of something like that. CI means "continuous", not "occasional". We moved to CI because what we had before wasn't often considered enough. If all those things are part of CI, then everything is CI and it's all we've ever done. But that's not the case, frequent, infrequent, automated, manual integration were all around and CI came about as an alternative.



  • @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.

    Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.

    Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.

    True, but essentially no one moves to CI without code management first, it's so hard and cart before the horse.

    You are looking at big, public repos and viewing the world that way. But remember, most development is done in languages like Java on old code bases in big silos where all of these concepts remain uncommon.



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.

    Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.

    Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.

    True, but essentially no one moves to CI without code management first, it's so hard and cart before the horse.

    You are looking at big, public repos and viewing the world that way. But remember, most development is done in languages like Java on old code bases in big silos where all of these concepts remain uncommon.

    Well we have thousands of applications 99% in Java in both SVN and Git and most are pipelined. Maybe not all are good pipelines, but they are pipelines.



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.

    It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.

    Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.

    Um, duh. Agile is one approach to dev, one that promotes CI. I think you just stated by point, you are assuming one aspect of Agile dev and assuming that all DevOps comes from one bit of Agile dev, which isn't true at all.

    I think you are wrong here.

    Agile is not the same thing as DevOps



  • @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.

    Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.

    Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.

    True, but essentially no one moves to CI without code management first, it's so hard and cart before the horse.

    You are looking at big, public repos and viewing the world that way. But remember, most development is done in languages like Java on old code bases in big silos where all of these concepts remain uncommon.

    Ant, Maven, and Gradle are the building blocks of Java build tools leveraged in CI/CD. Its odd you would pick Java as a language that wouldn't be a part of that process.



  • @Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @Obsolesce said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    CI/CD is also one of those things that is just "one approach" in both IT and Dev circles. XP made it popular, it existed before but no one talked about it, and XP was only popular in "what people have heard of", not what people actively do. The majority of developers don't use it today. And many, maybe a majority or maybe not, don't think that it is appropriate even today. Regular integration is important, but many people believe that frequest, rather than continuous, is a better approach.

    It's much like test first. It is a recent concept, not an old one. And while essentially all developers and DevOps know what it is, extremely few adopt it. It's today where CI was eight years ago.

    Are you referring to the Agile approach of working? That's not the same thing as DevOps.

    Um, duh. Agile is one approach to dev, one that promotes CI. I think you just stated by point, you are assuming one aspect of Agile dev and assuming that all DevOps comes from one bit of Agile dev, which isn't true at all.

    I think you are wrong here.

    Agile is not the same thing as DevOps

    How does repeating what I said make me wrong? I keep saying that they are not the same. Not sure what you think you are arguing against. Nothing I've said in any way conflates the two.



  • @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @scottalanmiller said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    @stacksofplates said in The Death of Sysadmin:

    Pick a project on GitHub/GitLab. If they have a .travis yml, Jenkinsfile, .gitlab-ci.yml, bamboo.yml, etc they are leveraging at least CI. I don't think I've noticed one without a build file for quite some time.

    Yeah, but that's why I pointed out that most projects aren't up to using Git yet. You are filtering out the most likely to have CI as a starting point.

    Yeah I don't believe that, and anyway just because you're not using Git doesn't mean you're not using CI/CD.

    True, but essentially no one moves to CI without code management first, it's so hard and cart before the horse.

    You are looking at big, public repos and viewing the world that way. But remember, most development is done in languages like Java on old code bases in big silos where all of these concepts remain uncommon.

    Ant, Maven, and Gradle are the building blocks of Java build tools leveraged in CI/CD. Its odd you would pick Java as a language that wouldn't be a part of that process.

    Not really at all, as Java was popular and entrenched before those were popular. And bottom line, no matter what tools are out there, most developers currently in the work force were not taught those approaches (they were unheard of in university even in 2006) and went to work at companies that had never heard of them.

    I've worked in new Java west coast start ups in the last two years that chose Java and had never heard of this stuff. Is it odd that they picked Java? Yes, but not for that reason. They were just "normal developers" without these kinds of skills, and they weren't kids who learned this as "the one way to do it" like it is taught only extremely recently.

    It might seem like these approaches are super obvious today, but this is an extremely recent phenomenon. It seems so obvious that we feel like it must have been how people did this for forever, but it just wasn't. CI wasn't popular until XP made it so, and XP was still one of those "niche things" that people thought was a crazy developer cult well into the 2000s.


Log in to reply