But yes. The devops movement is actually here to bring the 90s back when we didnt specialize to an extent where silos are created and the gaps between teams get in the way
Like it or not, vernacular changes. Today, in most contexts, "sysadmin" suggests (at worst) a Windows pusher armed with a mouse and (at best) a heads-down computer toucher (which is also what this "devops consultant" document seems to outline, really, so you're not wrong!).
You're totally right in that sysadmins can certainly practice (part of) devops, but anywhere I've ever gone it's less the rule then the exception and "sysadmin" is a career-limiting classification, akin to calling oneself a programmer [0]. Ends, not means, etc.
certainly won't disagree that it can be limiting to folks of some perspectives, but as someone who publicly has applied the sysadmin label for the duration of their career (starting in the early 00's), I've yet to see a downside.
I've been obscenely compensated for working on interesting projects for much of my career. then again, part of it may be due to the confidence that comes with focusing on my work instead of fluffing my title.
You also, candidly, may be experienced enough and have enough time-served to get away with it. ;) There's definitely an effect--I kinda want to call it a thermocline?--above which your actual achievements can speak for themselves, particularly if you've built a solid network.
Today, if I had a notion to, I could probably call myself a "sysadmin" and not have trouble finding well-compensated work. But when I was freelancing, as well as when I was earlier in my career, I can tell you a lot of doors would have slammed right shut had I used the term regardless of my capacity. I do not particularly love the term "devops", but at this point its umbrella at least encompasses what we (like, you and I, not the general we) think about when we're doing this stuff, and it has a certain amount of loaned--or stolen--credibility.
As I said in a top-level comment, I'm more twitchy at this description of being a consultant than I am at the devops part.
Hello, I've had Data Structures, while on BSc and implemented by hand hashmaps.. If you read the post you would understand the doubt.
Try the following:
a = [i for in range(10000)]
if 9999 in a:
print('yay I just looped over an entire array')
however:
a = {i:i for in range(10000)}
if 9999 in a:
print('yay I found a key in linear time')
Now, You might be an expert in Data Structures, but what makes you implicitly know how the 'IN' behaves in python, and that it won't convert to the keys() method of the dict to get a list with the same behaviour as in a list?
> [...] what makes you implicitly know how the 'IN' behaves in python, and that it won't convert to the keys() method of the dict to get a list with the same behaviour as in a list?
Because it would be the dumb way to do it. You have a lookup procedure to
extract a value from a hash. A procedure to check if the key is present in the
hash will look exactly the same, barring the value being returned.
Libraries usually work the same way as you would write yourself if you were
trained in the task, so it's easy to guess.
I believe the best methods to remain the same that it has always been, create quality content by delivering value to your visitors and keep your webapp running without maing your page hang on clients as well as presenting a clean interface, that should be cross device.
Even if w3schools have fixed all these instances since then, that all those errors were ever produced is a bad sign, especially when there were better alternatives even then.
If you keep punishing someone for past mistakes there is no reason to improve.
On the other hand MDN is a mozilla resource and had good stuff from day 1 so they deserve the traffic.
