Poking around and have to ask an obvious question: What's the difference between this and Canonical's Juju from twenty years ago? Isn't this just the same thing, but with newer tools?
I remember driving to the datacenter to setup my own servers. I had a fractional T1 to my desk, it provided a blazing 640k (sometimes all the way up to an unfathomable 1MB!!1!) of bandwidth and only cost around $1,300 a month. Good times.
That gave way to hosting providers, like ServerBeach and Rackspace, where you paid them to setup the server hardware for you, saving the drive. You still had to deal with bandwidth, backup, redundancy, etc. Much easier than before but still a pretty big hassle.
Then the cloud happened. "Come to the cloud, where everything just magically happens for you," the salesperson said. So I went. And discovered that none of my scripts, tools or knowledge worked there, and had to completely start over from scratch. FOR EACH VENDOR. Gah.
The ONE thing I will grant cloud providers is that I can usually automate my way around their enshittification. They over-complicate things to an extreme where I do wonder if there is an actual savings or not, just based on the headaches their setups can consistently produce.
My take is that your needs pretty much determine which route is more/less painful. Sometimes you DO need the redundancy and uptime enough to tolerate the shenanigans of the vendor, and other times you just need your own machine to quietly get things done (without worrying about SLAs or client expectations).
The ultimate question you should be asking, and there is no right/wrong answer: For this particular effort, is it more valuable to you to learn how to do these things by hand, or is the infrastructure just a means to an end so you can do something specific?
Yeah agreed, there are pros and cons but ultimately we are exchanging control for convenience.
The idea of a hosting provider that manages all the boilerplate, security updates etc is not a bad thing. The idea of being able to spin up another node, have load balancing etc just work and you didn't even have to get out of bed - is also not a bad thing.
Where it becomes suspicious is when Amazon and Google both have their 'own' databases, which are just different enough to make it a pain. And yes I know I can spin up e.g. a Postgres instance on Google or AWS for not much money, but now I have a vendor-specific provisioning script. "Just use Terraform or Pulumi" - even when an LLM manages this web of corporate enterprise nonsense it's still unmanageable and everyone just ends up with a run book of prayers.
The author has clearly never tried to leg press 300+ pounds in the gym to Madonna's "Like a Virgin". Sometimes the biggest sell of earbuds is noise REDUCTION, not what sounds they can make.
I do agree that there are "social interactions" that are greatly devalued by people wishing not to be interacted with. But for me the earbuds are usually in to block annoyances, not avoid human contact.
This is talking about the second order effects of using the earbuds to avoid annoyances. It might not be the conscious reason you do things, but it is an effect that it has. The question worth exploring is what is the second order effect when people grow up where being isolated acoustically, or doing the social signal of having earbuds in even without something playing, is the norm for all interactions?
Another reality is that at that scale you need to diversify your vendor portfolio so you never get stuck in a single-vendor scenario (for contracts, liability or scale). Many companies half this size have infrastructure across all three - AWS, Azure and GCP. The primary reason is redundancy, but that also gives them potential leverage for contract negotiation.
(Sorry, couldn't resist.) I could be the lone dissenter here, but to me well-written comments are a lot more fun to read than near-gibberish.
I wished more people tried harder to be better communicators, but it is what it is. If AI can decipher these comments and produce a much more coherent statement, then I'm for it.
The world changes. Time marches on, and the very skills you spend your time developing will inevitably expire in their usefulness. Things that were once marvelous talents are now campfire stories or punchlines.
LLMs may be accelerating the process, but definitely not the cause.
If you want a career in technology, a durable one, you learn to adapt. Your primary skill is NOT to master a given technology, it is the ability to master a given technology. This is a university that has no graduation!
Is it though? If it was that universal, we'd employ the best programmers as plumbers, since they have the best ability to master plumbing technology. There are limits, and I think the skill being to master programming technologies is a reasonable limit.
If you're a great programmer, can you can stop using Angular and master React? Yes. Can you stop telling the computer what to do, and master formal proof assistants? Maybe. Can you stop using the computer except as a tool and go master agricultural technology? Probably not. (Which is not to say you can't be a good programmer at an agritech company)
The “this wrecked my industry” sob story is especially rich when the vast majority of tech workers ability to demand premium salaries comes directly from creating software that makes existing jobs obsolete.
Let’s talk about the industries the computer killed: travel agents, musician, the entire film development industry, local newspapers built on classified ads, the encyclopedia industry, phone operators, projectionists, physical media industries, and a few dozen other random industries.
We aren’t special because we are coders. Creativity and engineering thoughtfulness will still exist even with LLMs, it will just take a different form.
Since I love programming, I feel pretty lucky I got to live and work in the only few decades in which it's economically viable to work as a computer programmer. At least "musician" had a longer run, but I guess we had it coming.
What exactly would people retrain into? The future these companies explicitly want is AI taking ALL the jobs, It's not like PMs are going to be any safer, or any other knowledge work. I see little evidence that AI is going to create new jobs other than a breathless assurance that it "always happens"
For me it was Windows 95 finally getting rid of Trumpet Winsock. Been a steady decline ever since.
reply