Readit News logoReadit News
readlikeasloth commented on Ukrainian hackers destroyed the IT infrastructure of Russian drone manufacturer   prm.ua/en/ukrainian-hacke... · Posted by u/doener
WhyNotHugo · 8 months ago
Modern IT practices don’t really contemplate disaster recovery. Even organisations with strict backup procedures seldom test recovery (most never at all).

Everything is quickly strapped together due to teams being understaffed. Preparing infrastructure in a way such that it can easily be recreated is easily twice the effort as “just” setting it up the usual way.

readlikeasloth · 8 months ago
Say what you want about European financial organizations but they are legally obliged to practice their recovery strategies. So every other month production clusters with all user data get teared down in one cloud region and set up in another one over night. This works surprisingly well. I guess they would never do that without the legal requirements.
readlikeasloth commented on Deutsche Bank's “dysfunctional” IT division (2018)   efinancialcareers.co.uk/n... · Posted by u/Cwizard
Nextgrid · 3 years ago
This is not surprising at all, and is not specific to Deutsche Bank or even banking in general.

This is a property of large, bloated legacy companies in any field. IT is still seen as a cost center and a secondary concern rather than the enabler of their business. As a result, pay/resources and "political capital" (for the lack of a better word) are allocated accordingly.

IT folks there aren't given the pay nor recognition they deserve, so no good talent joins or stays for long enough. Junior talent that joins ends up just learning from the mess and has no chance of actually becoming "good", so the problem continues.

Furthermore, the messy and unefficient IT systems benefit many people there, from lower-level menial positions whose jobs would be obsoleted by good IT to managerial positions who have a large list of reports to manage which gives them prestige and justifies their salary. Third-party suppliers also benefit as a bad IT system requires constant attention while a good system would require less attention (and a competent in-house team can attend do it, requiring no third-party involvement). Bad IT can also serve as cover - problems can be blamed on it instead of incompetence.

Fixing it incrementally from inside is politically impossible as people who rely on the status-quo will fight you on every step of the way. The only potential way is the organizational equivalent of a "full rewrite" - set up a subsidiary, give it unlimited money and task it with building a competing product. Operate it like a startup with the appropriate culture (especially regarding tech). Once the product is competitive, migrate customers onto it over time. This should be feasible at least for retail banking as UK fintech startups proved it's not actually impossible to create a bank from scratch. Rinse and repeat for every vertical of the business.

readlikeasloth · 3 years ago
... but then you have two competing organizations: OLD versus NEW. This is how it plays out: NEW starts as your shiny, agile, start-up-ish org with all the young people with the latest ideas. A company nearby got rid of all their freelancers? Great, let´s hire all of them. Think big. Great meetings and people seem to really make progress happen. We´re getting rid of all the REST APIs and introduce Apache Kafka as a message bus for the company. Only then progress stalls and OLD slowly begins to crawl back in. Legal department audits the agile process and unfortunately German laws are quite tough on bogus self-employment. All the freelancers have to go and NEW loses all their expertise. Other employees follow as this whole thing does not pay that great and looks more and more like any other 9/5 job. Fast forward, 5 years later: the startup spirit is long gone. Corporate culture at NEW mirrors OLD. And not only culture wise. The NEW, "-tech" company is not seen as an independent company any more but supposed to be merged with the parent company. Because why have two of the same, right? Meanwhile OLD made some progress and introduced some reform projects. So developers do not have to fill out a printed paper application to get new servers any more. Only now you have two Kafka clusters with completely different setups as OLD also started their one one at some point.

My learning here: new is not new if the culture stays the same. Also: never underestimate the power of old. People always talk about the new, shiny stuff. But old was there first. And is much more resilient than it seems.

readlikeasloth commented on Ableton Push 3   ableton.com/en/push/... · Posted by u/navidhg
vemv · 3 years ago
I own a Push 1 and 2, although at hobbyist level.

The standalone Push 3 seems a great step forward. macOS has increasingly become user-hostile when it comes to audio (and other pro) users.

For instance I have an expensive sound card that became useless with after a minor OS upgrade. I never got to troubleshoot it or find an official solution.

That was incredibly discouraging - enough to move on to other hobbies. And I'm a programmer - don't want to imagine the pains that musicians have to go through.

readlikeasloth · 3 years ago
Same here. Tried to connect an old Midiman Midi interface to a recent MacOs. Oh boy. Someone built a driver and I´m grateful for that but it was quite something to get the thing working. It seemed to me a waste to buy a new piece of hardware for some antique technology like Midi, just because the driver of the old interface was not working any more. I don´t mind dealing with pain caused by computers in my day job. But in my free time as a musician all those technological hassles are a hindrance of creativity.
readlikeasloth commented on “Clean Code, Horrible Performance” Discussion   github.com/unclebob/cmura... · Posted by u/rinesh
readlikeasloth · 3 years ago
Last time I checked programming had something to do with computer science. You could say its applied computer science. So I ask myself: how come that this discipline, already 50+ years old, has almost no consensus of how its output aka written code should be structured? Why are there no established standards or rules? Not a rethorical question, happy to hear your thoughts.
readlikeasloth commented on “Clean Code, Horrible Performance” Discussion   github.com/unclebob/cmura... · Posted by u/rinesh
wirrbel · 3 years ago
Robert C Martin's (who is not my uncle) Clean Code book/advice is what I would call junior programmer material. Its good to get someone started to think about better ways of writing software (albeit is hasn't aged very well).

I don't recommend it to juniors anymore because it hasn't aged well and is for my taste hyperbolic in its promises.

IMHO clean code also is more focused on code implementing "business logic" than "systems programming" for example (probably a bit tricky to actually define what the difference is between these too).

readlikeasloth · 3 years ago
This begs the question: what do you recommend instead?
readlikeasloth commented on Google Is Losing Control   techcrunch.com/2023/02/10... · Posted by u/mikece
romeros · 3 years ago
What more indication do you want? A peer reviewed research paper?

Anyone who used ChatGPT frequently enough finds it difficult to get back to using Google. One specific query is all that takes to get an answer from ChatGPT which is on point. The alternative is to rummage through the top few links from Google and trying to construct the information you need after trying different variations of search phrases.

When the iPhone first came out there were arm chair pundits who predicted that no one would buy or use an expensive phone. But the people who actually used it knew that it was the wave of the future even back in the day. Same thing with ChatGPT.

readlikeasloth · 3 years ago
Ah. Sweet memories of a legendary Steve Ballmer moment: https://youtu.be/eywi0h_Y5_U
readlikeasloth commented on “Who Should Write the Terraform?”   zwischenzugs.com/2022/08/... · Posted by u/zwischenzug
solatic · 4 years ago
ITT people arguing for embedding infrastructure engineers into product teams.

Ayyyy, dios mio.

a) If you need to embed, then actually, you need to embed InfoSec, UX, IT, Customer Success, Product, Compliance, etc. etc. for exactly the same reasons. In today's labor-constrained economy, good luck finding qualified people for every role on every team! And if one of them leaves, who ensured that they documented everything for the next guy? Or that you'll find someone to fill the role quickly? If you have a 30 person company, fine, no big deal. 150+ and it starts to become a serious problem.

b) Particularly for infrastructure, you will shoot yourself in the foot on your production cloud bill. If you share no infrastructure with other teams, then you will find no shared efficiency in sharing the same infrastructure. Conway's Law will burn your runway. If you're 100% serverless then this doesn't really apply, but if you're spinning up eight different Kubernetes clusters for eight different teams then you probably need to collaborate a bit better.

Product teams need to own their product top to bottom. Platform teams need to make that easy for them, because modern stacks are huge, it's not possible to staff a single team with all the necessary experts, and all that expertise is a genuine necessity. The lines are drawn in different places in different companies depending on available labor and technical requirements.

readlikeasloth · 4 years ago
> If you're 100% serverless then this doesn't really apply, but if you're spinning up eight different Kubernetes clusters for eight different teams then you probably need to collaborate a bit better.

This is exactly the situation I´m currently in. Company decided to migrate from big on-prem kubernetes to AWS. Now every team got their own account and well... good luck, you´re on your own now. We´re a small team of three developers. Although we have three certifications under our belts (AWS Dev, CKA, CKAD) it took us almost three months to configure AWS and set up the Terraform pipeline and define processes like "upgrading cluster". The "enabling" part was basically missing in the whole cloud strategy of the company. It was more like: good luck, you´re on your own now.

In fact we made contact with a neighboring team. Only to find out that their use case was so different from ours that collaboration didn´t make any sense. For them Kubernetes was not a good fit, for us it was the way to go.

Speaking of sharing a cluster or AWS ressources: we figured out that it is not allowed due to billing reasons. Company policy is: One product per AWS account.

If you ask me I see a shift of paradigms happening here. Now you hear a lot about "enabling teams" instead a dedicated team for infrastructure providing services (e.g. the Kubernetes podcast from Google). I´m not convinced yet. I think this is more like kicking down responsibility down the chain. And then it feels more like: Someone needs to do the dirty work but nobody wants to do it.

It might work if you don´t have to provide Service-level agreements (in our case: we don´t). For us it is just more work to do. And our work shifts from dev to ops. Instead of writing software we´re mostly busy with configuring cloud resources. This will ease a bit once everything is running. However: I see this whole change more as ... uh, strong word... ideologically motivated. Cui bono? Neither our team, nor our users nor our infrastructure bill.

readlikeasloth commented on Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)   teamten.com/lawrence/writ... · Posted by u/bravogamma
weatherlite · 4 years ago
As a new Go user I seriously don't get the hype. It feels like C with some (not many) niceties thrown on top, that's not what we expect from high level languages. I am still waiting for the tada moment, hope it comes.
readlikeasloth · 4 years ago
I don't want to spill the beans here, and well: you figured it already out by yourself.
readlikeasloth commented on What I learned during my three days offline   raptitude.com/2022/02/wha... · Posted by u/imgabe
otagekki · 4 years ago
or a monastery buried deep in a valley with poor network coverage
readlikeasloth · 4 years ago
You are joking but this place exists, in California in the middle between SF and L.A. and spent 5 months there. Didn‘t write an article about it though.
readlikeasloth commented on Why is everything so hard in a large organization?   graphthinking.blogspot.co... · Posted by u/physicsgraph
Robotbeat · 4 years ago
I honestly wonder if it IS possible to know roughly how a company works and be able to make tactical improvements throughout. This is dismissed as micromanaging, and most people lack the curiosity necessary to accomplish it, but could a CEO/CTO actually have a good enough understanding to make changes throughout an organization and fix the dumb things that every employee knows but doesn’t have the authority to change? I suppose most executives and management spend a ton of time in meetings and not making such tactical decisions, but I do wonder if it is possible.

I’m reminded of SpaceX, who is run by Gwynne Shotwell and Elon Musk. Gwynne keeps the whole business machine running and manages existing programs so well that Elon has the bandwidth to dig down to a fractal level and address a lot of the weird issues & bottlenecks that everyone knows about while leading new programs extremely fast. Or at least, that’s the story (doubtless the CEO meddling has negative effects, too, but overall seems to work at least as well as traditional organizations that big). Also, maybe that can only happen in a business like SpaceX which is filled with a bunch of fantastic workers who are just really driven to make things work at all levels.

readlikeasloth · 4 years ago
Why does it have to be the CEO? My first association was that Winston Wolfe character from Pulp Fiction. Wouldn´t it be neat if companies had that kind of fixer who you could call for the real hard problems? Like problems that arise from the structure of the organization and cannot be fixed on a micro level. Asking half joking, half serious.

u/readlikeasloth

KarmaCake day17October 16, 2019View Original