I have a clear statement in my profile at linkedin: I am a Unix/Linux sysadmin, not a "DevOps" or a "Cloud/AWS/Azure engineer". I am only doing traditional Unix/Linux sysadmin stuff.
There is not a day going by where a recruiter doesn't tell me "we are urgently looking for an experienced Linux sysadmin. Are you interested?"
> I am a Unix/Linux sysadmin, not a "DevOps" or a "Cloud/AWS/Azure engineer". I am only doing traditional Unix/Linux sysadmin stuff.
I will steal this.
As for the term "DevOps", I am never sure what people mean when they use it.
You seem to be using in contrast to traditional linux sysadmin. What exactly does DevOps mean in your definition?
DevOps originally means a method. It is not a position or a job. But that doesn't stop companies to say, there are looking for an "DevOps engineer" or similar. The definition is vague at best.
Some seem to think a "DevOps" is a developer who knows how to administrate servers (or vice versa), as a modern term for a general IT person who can do anything, from programming, to firewall administration and repairing the printer.
Another definition is more specific, DevOps means in this case: working with CI/CD tools, programming "infrastructure as code" (Terraform, Ansible, etc) and doing all things "agile". This job is mostly cloud focussed.
YML is the exact reason I don't use Ansible anymore. Writing complex YML for simple tasks is a time burner.
After I discovered https://efs2.sh I switched over to this simple config management solution, which simply executes commands and scripts over ssh. It is so much simpler and faster (both in regards to creation and execution) than Ansible.
Person with Asperger's here.
The one thing that bothers me more than neurotypical people writing about autism without actually speaking with people with autism are people with autism who think that they can speak for the "community"
The first rule is always "if you have met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism". There is no "us" in the sense that we have something in common which distingushes us from all neurotypical people. So I don't agree with large parts of this article.
E.g I prefer person-first language, but that's not because I think, that autism is a pathology. I do identify myself with autism, but I don't think that this is the largest aspect of my personality, so I don't like to be called "autist" (as much as I don't want to be called "bigfoot" because I have 13 shoe size).
Yes, the author says, that there are people with autism who might disagree. But if he knows this, why is he talking about "we" and "us" all the time?
Hi, I'm the author, I'd love to help clarify this.
When I say I'm speaking for "the community" I mean very specifically that I'm a member of the community and I'm speaking about us. I went to great lengths repeatedly throughout the piece to make sure I was very explicit that I was only one voice.
I made a minimum of claims about Autism and what it is. Mostly what I argued was about what it isn't. I use the phrase "If you have met one person with autism you have met one person with autism" literally in the essay, so the fact that you would trot it out as a sort of correction is a bit confusing to me.
I don't think you disagree with me, I think you're a bit upset to see nuances that you don't agree with put forward -- even when they insist that disagreement is also valid. Is that right?
>I mean very specifically that I'm a member of the community and I'm speaking about us.
I still have problem with the word "us". What do you mean by "community"? If you mean a certain organization you should say so.
In the Asperger's forum in which I participate we agreed, that everyone should speak only for themselve, which means to use "I" and "me" instead of "us" and "we".
Great! That's a valid perspective and you should keep it!
In the autistic twitter community where I and a lot of other advocates spend our time we are inclusive and speak frequently about ourselves as a culture -- not as a monolith, mind you, but as a culture. We disagree frequently about everything from IFL/PFL to whether or not Autism should be considered a disability, but we recognize that we're all Autistic and we're all doing our best to make the world a safer place for all of us.
This is where the disconnect is coming from. Twitter 'communities' are a tiny minority of persons. They do not represent the everyday person. This is particularly so with autism, as autism frequently entails social difficulties that get people ostracized from the communities they attempt to join. Twitter, in particular, is quick to ostracize, and you should therefore consider that "Autism Twitter" contains only the subset of autistic persons who can socially pass as conversant, and who choose to be vocal on social networks.
I agree with that sentiment 100%, which is why I went to great lengths to encourage readers to make sure they check in with other Autistic people, that my voice is only one voice, that we are not a monolith, that I don't speak for everyone, etc.
Hell there's even a line near the end where I say that there are Autistic people who would disagree with every single line I have written, and that they are worth listening to as well.
I don’t get it either. You don’t even use “us” or “we” in the sense that’s being complained about, as far as I could find scanning the article.
How much more defensive can you be without not writing an article? And we do need _somebody_ to write about what is a fairly pressing problem in coverage of autism?
"Different things are obvious to me than are obvious to you."
I think this observation, while correct, is a bit too generic, since it's something which can be said about all people.
I have close relative who's on the autistic spectrum. I notice that what I find obvious, he may not find obvious. And what he finds obvious, I may not neccesarily find obvious.
I've spent many, many years pondering over it, and I've narrowed it down to the social communication. I've come to realize that a certain part of inter-human communication is of the "non spoken" kind. This includes facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, etc., but also tiny, tiny differences in how things are said or phrased.
I think "neurotypicals" will observe and accumulate these small, small signals, and they will use the accumulated values when they pass judgement on a social situation. At least that's how I perceive the differences between me and my relative. Whenever I judge a social situation differently from him, I find that the difference usually comes down to these fine-grained cues and signals. He passes judgement without taking them into account, because he simply does not observe them. And I pass judgement taking them into account.
From his side, his conclusion is correct, because of what he sees. And from my side, my own conclusion is also correct, based upon what I see.
That stood out to me as well - "We Are Not A Monolith [...] and we will read your coverage accordingly" just seems odd.
FWIW, I have some disabilities (OCD, some physical difficulties), and I just don't care about "person-first"/"identity-first"[1] language. Intent matters _so_ much more. I've had people who've obviously been trained to use person-first language be actively unpleasant (often the classic "you don't look disabled" and questioning the authenticity of my documents), and people who've used clumsy, borderline-offensive language go miles out of their way to help me (and the other way around). It's not really a useful indicator about someone's attitudes.
I will say "disabled person" stands out to me less, as "person with disabilities" can come across as a little forced. That's probably specific to individuals though, as I've just heard the former used much more during my life, and, as the article says, I'm sure many will disagree with any point I've made here.
[1] This feels like something of a misnomer as it's a descriptor, not your entire identity
> There is no "us" in the sense that we have something in common which distingushes us from all neurotypical people.
Would you mind expanding on that a bit?
I'm probably misunderstanding, but it seems to me that by definition an attribute like "on the Asperger spectrum" is the kind of partitioning you're saying doesn't exist.
Of course there is the autism spectrum. But it is a spectrum, it is not something that goes from mild to severe or where people have every symptom on the list in a certain degree. The spectrum is diverse - so it is wrong to make any general assumption about it.
(Note: I am not talking about "autism spectrum disorder" diagnosis according to DSM V or ICD-11. These diagnoses have a defined set of required symptoms. But the spectrum is far bigger than that).
I thought it was clear they wanted to speak for a smaller group. Are there words they could have used to do that without you feeling like they wanted to speak for you?
And apparently there is at least one guy using it to draw illustrations[1] and explain how to use it with a tutorial[0].
Sadly the site seems to have been moved from another location and the obj files (the files tgif uses) did not survive the move. Only one file was transferred from another tutorial (in Japanese) about using Tgif with Gimp, most likely because it had a "wrong" extension (.html). It does open fine in a build of Tgif i just did though[2].
Well found ;) I remember crossing this multiple times since the 90s while looking for Tgif-related info, but always in Japanese I think... and every time with marvel for his technique applied with both excellent software.
Essentially, hyperlinks for shapes; any graphic element can be linked to another, including other drawings (documents) or sections of a document.
I suppose that's obvious these days. Hyperlinks are expected.
I know that Visio (Windows) and OmniGraffle (MacOS) can do this. I would build active computer network diagrams, dashboards: you could click on a computer's graphic and get an SNMP report.
Great, thanks for the info! I used Tgif for exactly that, designing SNMP monitoring with network maps/dashboard like pages. Forgot exactly which combinations I implemented, but it envolved Tgif, Tkined [0], Scotty [1], Big Brother [2] and later Netsaint [3] (now known as Nagios).
This is speculation but after you use it for a while it has a very distinct look that I've never seen elsewhere. I mean if you use the stock template items.
Docker has its use cases. But running everything possible in a docker container just for the sake of "dockerizing" seems a little bit excessive.
One must basically maintain a (more or less) complete userland environment for every application.
The idea of shared libraries is taken to absurdity this way. It would be better to build all static.
Then there is the waste of resources. I'm sure with plenty GB RAM, TB of SSD space and GBit of bandwith available nowadays many people don't notice. But for what?
> Then there is the waste of resources. I'm sure with plenty GB RAM, TB of SSD space and GBit of bandwith available nowadays many people don't notice. But for what?
Yeah, you deff notice if you are trying to scale as cheaply as possible…
Docker for every application?
If you create and maintain the Docker image or Dockerfile for every applucation yourself, you must have plenty of time. If you rely on public images from Docker Hub, you must have plenty of trust in the creators of those images.
It's all relative, of course. But getting a signed package from the repo of the distro I'm using for years is something different than using a random image from hub.docker.com.
Sure, but you are still relying on trust, and you are choosing to limit yourself to things released by your chosen distro. This is the same as if you were to pick a specific docker publisher that you trust, and only use their images.
It's arguable that it's not quite the same. It all comes down to consequences.
If a distro messes up the trustworthiness of an application, they, the big and important company loses clout.
If the application developer messes up, they also lose clout - people may stop using their software.
Chances are, if you're using a third party for a third party piece of software that isn't officially dockerized by the company that developed it, nor a major distro, there's no real backlash if it doesn't work or if they get hacked, etc: "it was a third party trick, so _of course_ it wasn't trustworthy" would be the statement everyone makes.
Debian messing up, or Cisco or Oracle, etc, is a much bigger deal.
Yep, the reality is that we all rely on hundreds of millions of lines of code of software (mostly OSS) that make up our OS, tool chains, libraries, etc. every day. Basically, it's not feasible to even review a meaningful fraction of a percent of that in a lifetime; assuming you even have the skill level to do such a review. In other words, mostly you are blindly trusting other people to have signed off on something and that those people who you don't know personally did a good job of that.
I'm running a similar setup, whereby I run most applications (even the browser I'm using to type this reply) in docker or podman containers, opportunely created.
Judging from the Git repo containing my dockerfiles, I've been doing so since ~mid June 2018.
I've since automated:
* checking new versions of Git repos, alpine versions, and short crawlers for tools (i.e. I run "perl latest.pl" and a bunch of stuff happens and eventually some dockerfiles might get updated)
* auto-committing any change made from the above step (i.e. ./autocommit.sh) with a meaningful message based on the directory the dockerfile resides, as well as which environment variable containing the version changed
* I use https://github.com/crazy-max/diun/ running on my dokku server to keep up with base images updates (i.e. I get an email in the morning stating alpine:3.12 has been updated or debian:buster-slim or whatever); when a base image changes I have to manually "dp alpine:3.12" to "docker pull" and "podman pull" it; after that, I "make base-images" and my local base images (each coming with a short line to enable a local apt-cache-ng proxy) to also get updated; then a simple "make" makes all of them (docker build -t .... and podman build -t ...)
* Quite a lot of (mostly small) bash scripts to run those images.
As an example, the Dockerfile I use to build hadolint:
FROM local/mfontani/base:latest AS fetcher
LABEL com.darkpan.github-check github.com/hadolint/hadolint HADOLINT_VERSION
ENV HADOLINT_VERSION v1.19.0
RUN curl -sSL "https://github.com/hadolint/hadolint/releases/download/$HADOLINT_VERSION/hadolint-Linux-x86_64" -o /usr/bin/hadolint
RUN chmod +x /usr/bin/hadolint && \
/usr/bin/hadolint --version
FROM scratch
COPY --from=fetcher /usr/bin/hadolint /usr/bin/hadolint
ENTRYPOINT ["/usr/bin/hadolint"]
You also have to have plenty of trust in the creators of the applications. Using Docker isn't really different, especially when the creators of the applications have also provided the Dockerfiles. What you had before Docker was just as much based on trust.
I have much more trust in the application developers. Thus, I'd trust first party docker images, but repackaged applicaton images would fall out of date more often and remain out of date for longer than most distro packages IMO. And, with distributions, there's a community of maintainers that try to package everything to a standard, with docker, I don't think that's the case.
There is not a day going by where a recruiter doesn't tell me "we are urgently looking for an experienced Linux sysadmin. Are you interested?"