Remix clone Hacker News

If you can keep the people doing all the things, they become cheaper over time. Because as your system settles and people become more competent, both downtime and effort required to mend these problems reduce dramatically, and you can give more responsibilities to the same people without overloading them.

Disclosure: I'm a sysadmin.

▲

eptcyka 2 days ago | parent [-]

I wonder what is your managers take on this, given your incentives here.

▲

bayindirh 2 days ago | parent [-]

Honestly asking, what my incentives are looking like from there?

▲

eptcyka a day ago | parent [-]

You are incentivised to argue that it is good to keep employing sysadmins for self hosting, because that will keep you employed. You have a monetary incentive, thus you are a bit biased, in my opinion.

	▲	bayindirh a day ago \| parent [-]
		I think I didn't elaborate my point enough, so there's a misunderstanding. What I said is true for places where they already have sysadmins for various tasks. For the job I do (it's easy to find), you have to employ system administrations to begin with. So, at least for my job, working the way I described in my original comment is the modus operandi for the job itself. If the company you're working in doesn't prefer self-hosting things, and doesn't need system administrators for anything, you might be true, but having a couple of capable sysadmins on board both enables self-hosting and allows this initiative to grow without much extra cost, because it gets cheaper as the sysadmins learn and understand what they're doing, so they can handle more things with the same/less effort. See, system administrators are lazy people. They'd rather solve problems for once and for all and play PacMan in their spare time.