For the record, I'm an infrastructure person.
For the record, I'm an infrastructure person.
This is an incredibly demeaning comment. Assuming your colleagues have inherent worth and that they're doing their jobs reasonably given the constraints and demands placed upon them is a far more humane way to go about work.
> The business cares about time to market, not the perfect little homegrown PaaS the infra team built.
Those "perfect little homegrown PaaS" solutions get built for a reason - because of what happens after you get to market: the business starts to care a whole lot about how much it costs to run the thing you just shipped.
One of the main reasons a "perfect little homegrown PaaS" gets built is because it's typically a lot cheaper to run in-house. Lots of downsides to it, for sure, but you can't neglect the immense cost of a PaaS when you're running a business.
That sounds cute, but humans don't have inherent worth in a business. If you don't contribute to success (and aren't good enough at deceiving people that you are), you're going to get laid off.
I think that's what the parent comment is saying - infra is competing with potentially cheaper and more flexible solutions. Even if they do their jobs the best they can, put 100% effort in, yada yada yada - if there's a more efficient solution, infra as a whole will be left behind.
For example? The managed or cloud or... solutions are normally magnitudes more expensive than in house. PaaS are the closest in cost, due to the admin savings etc. but even there, we know current prices are investor funded to gain share.
At the far end, compare what you can get for $150/month at Hetzner vs. AWS. At real scale, paying for an infra team to run it will save a lot of money (and I've yet to see a fully managed solution which doesn't have a team of YAMLers anyway.)
> even there, we know current prices are investor funded to gain share
Of course humans have inherent worth in a business - humans are the business. I refuse to emulate the hyper-capitalist mindset of "some people are worthless." I'm not sure if you're saying that this is a value you hold, but it is certainly a value I do not share. There's a lot of room to talk about what "value" is in a business (including how some "value" is more readily quantified than others, and how we tend to mistake that for the only "value" that exists). But we have to stop conflating that with the worth of the humans in the business - that's not a humane way to view your fellow man.
> infra is competing with potentially cheaper and more flexible solutions
[citation needed]
I've been in the field for awhile now, and I can't say I've ever seen a PaaS turn out to be more flexible or cheaper in the long run. Even my beloved Heroku, to whom I compare all present and past PaaS offerings on the market! There are some limited exceptions I recognize for things like internal applications, or niche applications that do not have a broad user base (and never will), but I don't think those exceptions are enough to support the statement.
Our industry chases fads in a circle. This isn't the first time we've all decried "infra is bad, long live hosted services!" - Heroku's heydey wasn't that long ago, and I fondly recall App Engine being a big deal. Then the bill comes due and people migrate. Hell, you could even consider mainframes a part of the cycle, if you squint at it.
OK, can you please send me paychecks for doing nothing in your company? I have inherent value in your business, afterall. Thanks.
I then realized later that leadership and getting a large group of humans to work on a common goal is very difficult.
The idea the other group is doing nothing is usually a perception (or a lack of perspective, lack of empathy, and maybe arrogance), usually.
I know, I know - "time to market", "scaling on demand", "open source isn't free", "not our core competency", etc.
Infra staffing, hardware, scaling, and upgrades are expensive. But it doesn't help the fact that cloud costs an arm and a leg too.
I can't believe we haven't seen more of a race to the bottom in terms of costs and offerings.
Amazon is gorging itself on your margin. I wish we lived in a world with 20 AWSes, all at the same scale and market penetration.
We run an 8 figure business on mid 5 figure managed infra costs. An infrastructure team would be several multiples more expensive than that... even if it was a single individual.
Just because you can do it yourself or more cheaply, doesn't mean the effective business costs are less.
Edited: for grammar
Clearly, because "DevOps" people / skills are for free right?
Good software engineers who additionally have exp with Cloud and all its craziness definitely aren't asking for way higher salaries?
I've worked in small size data center and the amount of work performed by 2x minimal wage technicians was huge.
They were running on 5-10 engineers + 3 more skilled ppl at day and 1 person on night shift with 1 or 2 being "wakeable"
"Is a product made by grown ups familiar with your sector" is an actual selling point for most enterprise SaaS.