> and isn't just a new name for what competent teams were always doing anyway
That's interesting. I see that the opposite way: weren't competent ops teams already doing the things you listed in #2? Does keeping up with new developments in operations tooling need a new name? Shouldn't that just be part of doing ops well?
This says nothing about HOW which, after all is the title of the article
As someone who has named operations I can tell you how it works
It's pretty random and whoever says the first thing that sounds good usually goes. That said, at least one shop I worked in had a consistent theme with naming ops but that was about it.
No, "Ops" is legacy siloing of departments and by extension, tasks. Imagine driving a car, but it takes one person to do the steering and another person to do throttling. Seems pretty dumb, doesn't it?
Agreed, I guess these guys have a different definition of operations. This sounds more like management/compliance or maybe they should have stated Business Operations. That might might carry a more accurate description in the tech community.
reply