Software-Defined Data Centers: Seeing Through the Hype

Nerval's Lobster writes "In case you didn't catch it yesterday, AllThingsD ran a piece endorsing the idea of the software-defined data center. That's a venue where hordes of non-technical mid- and upper-level managers will see it and (because of the credibility of AllThingsD) will believe software-defined data centers are not only possible, but that they exist and that your company is somehow falling behind because you personally have not sketched up a topology on a napkin or brought a package of it to install. If mid-level managers in your datacenter or extended IT department have not been pinged at least once today by business-unit managers offering to tip them off to the benefits of software-defined data centers—or demand that they buy one—then someone should go check the internal phone system because not all the calls are coming through. Why was AllThingD's piece problematic? First, because it's a good enough publication to explain all the relevant technology terms in ways that even a non-technical audience can understand. Second, it's also a credible source, owned by Dow Jones & Co. and spun off by The Wall Street Journal. Third, software-defined data centers are genuinely happening—but it's in the very early stages. The true benefits of the platform won't arrive for quite some time—and there's too much to do in the meantime to talk about potential endpoints. Fortunately, there are a number of resources online to help tell hype from reality."

Re:End of the "UNIX/Linux guru"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tempted to do a snarky rewrite of your post, like this:

Much the same could be said for the future of programming: soon, one will use these newfangled "libraries" and "macros" for every task, never stopping to consider hand-optimizing their assembly code, because there will be no assembly-code gurus left. Nobody engaging in this sort of plug-and-chug "programming" will really have to have much of an idea of what's going on with the computers. Their concerns are stringing together pre-packaged libraries with just enough logic to solve real-world problems. Most of them will be paid at security-guard levels.

I'm afraid, though, that the point would be lost in the sarcasm. When datacenter jobs are basically custodial/janitorial/security in nature, progress will have been made. Minds that are able and willing to tackle difficult systems should be applied to life's real problems, not to the OCD maintenance of computer systems in a data warehouse. This is the modern analogy of the industrial revolution: what artists (gurus) once handled with skills finely honed by experience and the wisdom of generations of artisans, shifts of line-workers armed with machinery soon churned out in quantities orders of magnitude greater and at far lower prices, and the truly skilled went on to work on other problems, and the less-skilled despite being less-skilled still got the job done, and progress was made, and the world is a better place for it. Sure, your local Guru is going to be replaced; he'll go to work on something else, and downtimes will be lower, and costs to access computing will be lower, and applications more powerful, and progress will be made.