DevOps is coming, DevOps is coming! You could hear the rallying cry around the city of Boston on September 15th and 16th. This is when the DevOps Leadership Series crew headed up north to attend DevOps Days Boston.
We first caught up with Beno Chapman (@BenoChapman), release engineering leader at Constant Contact. Beno shared, “Don’t be afraid to prototype something”. Sage advice for many DevOps practitioners. He also provided perspective why we should all consider “productizing services” that we offer to stakeholders across the different functional areas of our business.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQitydh904
Next, we hung out with Anthony Spring (@DevOpsAnthony), minister of DevOps culture and tech lead at Yieldbot. Anthony delivered a compelling lightning talk in Boston around quantifying technical debt. He shared a brief recap of that topic and then discussed a new theme in DevOps conversations that points to challenges around hiring the right people and vetting the right tools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQufvcFiRmo
Jeremiah Sullivan (@Jeremiah_NYC), Technical Solutions Engineer at Puppet Labs, joined us next. He talks about the growing interest in containerization and solutions like Docker and Rocket. Jeremiah then shared some insight into how DevOps teams are expanding beyond automation at the server level to now include managing infrastructure like switches, load balancers, and hypervisors.
We are at an inflection point in the adoption of DevOps. Now is not the time to blink.
DevOps was once thought to be a practice attainable by a select few. The early pioneers were the ones with arrows in their backs. For those who succeeded a new level of awesomeness was achieved and admiration was deserved. But we have reached a new level of DevOps maturity today – one with broader participation across functional disciplines, where more rigorous processes being applied, and significantly more organizations are seeing a return on their early investments.
This week, I caught up with three amazing guys with a wealth of DevOps experience to add to the DevOps Leadership Series. We now have 18 free videos in the series.
Dave Farley – DevOps for Everyone
First, I sat down with Dave Farley (@DaveFarley77), co-author of Continuous Delivery. Dave first talks about experimenting with and optimizing the development process from beginning to end, and then shares that DevOps is truly an approach available to everyone in the organization.
https://youtu.be/1VLb3XQcRbA
Brian Dawson – Cross-Functional DevOps
I then sat down for a chat with Brian Dawson (@BrianVDawson), DevOps Evangelist at CloudBees, who is observing that cross-functional participation in DevOps is on the rise. It is no longer a practice relegated to a select few participants in a development or operations team.
https://youtu.be/B2JhCMlYBDg
Curtis Yanko – The ROI of Software Factories
Finally, I caught up with Curtis Yanko (@onCommit), the former Architecture Manager for Cigna’s DevOps Center of Excellence (and now colleague of mine at Sonatype). Curtis has been seeing the successful adoption of “software factories” reduce day-to-day burdens on DevOps teams which allows them to further accelerate learning and process improvements.
On October 1st, we are going to extend these three conversations even further. I have invited Dave, Brian, and Curtis to join me for a discussion on how to get started with DevOps or how you can reach the next level of maturity in your existing DevOps practice. Be sure to sign up for this event – you won’t want to miss it.
Dave, Brian, and Curtis will share 45 minutes with us discussing DevOps processes, adoption practices, technologies, and cross-functional alignment that are critical to DevOps success. We’ll also share and discuss DevOps reference architectures that can jump start your own practice or further validate the path you are already on. You can RSVP here.
People want to get going with DevOps or Continuous Delivery, but need a place to start. Others are already on their way, but need some validation of their choices. In April, I published the first volume of DevOps and Continuous Delivery reference architectures which has now been viewed over 37,000 times on SlideShare (it’s free to download…no registration required). Three things helped people in the deck: (1) the reference architectures, (2) links to the sources for each architecture attached to each slide, and (3) no marketing fluff.
I am honored to have helped so many people on their DevOps and Continuous Delivery journeys. So this month, I compiled Volume 2 of the reference architectures. You can now view the deck on SlideShare, download it (again…no registration required), and share it with others. Have a look and let me know what you think.
As I did with Volume 1, if you have a reference architecture that you would like to share, I would be happy to add it into Volume 2 with full attribution to you. Just ping me in the comments section or reach out to me @weekstweets.
In my previous post, “When Good Code Goes Bad“, I shared new research showing the average large development organization consumes over 15,000 known vulnerable and defective components annually. While we can’t stop software from going bad, there are practices from traditional manufacturers that we can use to improve our ability to recall and fix the “bad” software components.
The Software BOM
A Bill of Materials (BOM) is used in traditional manufacturing supply chains to list the suppliers and parts used in a product, a “software bill of materials“ (BOM) is an inventory of the third party and open source components used to build an application.
A sample software bill of materials lists all open source and third party components, including their version, age, license type, and any known security vulnerabilities.
As noted in Wikipedia, “The concept of a BOM is well-established in traditional manufacturing as part of supply chain management. A manufacturer uses a BOM to track the parts it uses to create a product. If defects are later found in a specific part, the BOM makes it easy to locate affected products.
“A software BOM is useful both to the development organization (manufacturer) and the buyer (customer) of a software product. Builders often leverage available open source and third-party software components to create a product; a software BOM allows the builder to make sure those components are up to date and to respond quickly to new vulnerabilities. Buyers can use a software BOM to perform vulnerability or license analysis, both of which can be used to evaluate risk in a product. Understanding the supply chain of software, obtaining a software BOM, and using it to analyze known vulnerabilities are crucial in managing risk.”
A software bill of materials not only inventories what is used, but in some cases it also syncs with real-time component defect data to indicate which components have known vulnerabilities or license risks. Various software supply chain automation tools expand the bill of software much further, alerting stakeholders automatically when a defect alert occurs. In advanced tools, the entire software lifecycle is automated to ensure that defective components are avoided and continuous monitoring instantly identifies newly announced vulnerabilities as soon as they are discovered.
Breaking Bad
As mentioned in my previous post, When Good Code Goes Bad, there is no way to prevent software from “going bad”. No one is immune from these issues. Therefore, we need to focus on our responses to these issues.
To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, “It’s not how you get knocked down, it’s how you get up”. Following the OpenSSL vulnerability announcement in 2014 (or pick any other new security vulnerability with or without an assigned logo), every development and IT operations team on the planet was asking two questions:
Did we ever use that open source component?
if yes, where is it?
For those organizations tracking their use of components with a software bill of materials, the answer was easy to find. For other organizations, weeks and often months of research were required. To get a sense of the lack of maturity around traceability practices, take a look at this image from Sonatype research showing announcements of OpenSSL vulnerabilities in products following the initial vulnerability disclosure in April 2014.
Automating Traceability Across the Software Supply Chain
Software supply chain complexities, coupled with the volume and velocity of open source and third-party components flowing through them, are forcing us to think differently about our current practices across development and operations. We are not the first to face these challenges and we can learn a great deal from the mature practices of other high-velocity manufacturing organizations and industries.
One thing is certainly clear. Manual practices of monitoring or occasional checkpoints cannot keep pace with volume and velocity of components being consumed. And if you extend these considerations beyond just open source components and into containers, microservices, or other images used in development and operations, the problem is further out of reach for manual processes to keep pace. The volume and velocity within our software supply chains will not diminish—and without a new approach, the volume of unchecked quality and integrity of parts being consumed will continue to build up as technical debt.
But the answer is here today: automation. Automation can unleash the potential of an organization’s development capacity. Rarely is there such an opportunity to simultaneously increase speed, efficiency, and quality. Solutions that facilitate comprehensive software supply chain automation are poised to usher in the next wave in development productivity—with gains on par or even greater than possible with agile, Lean, and DevOps.
More information on the current state of software supply chain practices as well as examples of best practices being employed by software development teams, can be found in the 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain Report.
Milk spoils. Iron rusts. And in software, good code goes bad. Yet the difference is, with the first two, you know the change has occurred. With software, those changes are not always obvious.
Your 5,100 Binaries Went Bad
There is no way to prevent software from “going bad”. As with all products, bugs and defects,are bound to happen at some point. No one and no code is immune from these issues. But who’s looking for the 5,100 software components in your organization that went bad last year (meaning new security vulnerabilities were discovered in them)? It’s all too likely, no one.
Earlier this year, I took a deep dive into the analysis of software supply chains that fuel high velocity development practices and IT operations. The analysis revealed that some of the largest development organizations were consuming an average of 240,000 open source components to expedite development, accelerate innovation, and meet time to release deadlines. While reaping huge benefits from this consumption, these same organizations were unintentionally growing their technical and security debt. How you ask?
Here is a summary of the their average debt:
Source: 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain Report
The analysis showed that over 15,000 (7.5%) of the open source components being consumed by these organizations in 2014 had known security vulnerabilities. Of those 15,000 components, an average of 66% (9,900) had known vulnerabilities dated 2013 or older. That means, they were known vulnerable components (“bad”) before they were downloaded.
The remaining 34% (approx. 5,100) might have actually been “good” components at the time they were downloaded by development teams from public open source repositories, but at some time during 2014 a new security vulnerability was discovered and a CVE identifier was assigned.
Even with the best controls in place to protect developers from downloading open source components with known vulnerabilities, the fact that new vulnerabilities are continuously discovered — about 50 new CVEs are announced daily — means that continuous integration and delivery practices also need to be complemented by continuous governance and visibility practices.
We’re Not Alone
Software development is not the only industry facing such issues of things good things going bad. I bet all of us have received notification from our car’s manufacturer that a certain part is being recalled. While the part was known to be safe when the manufacturer sourced it from suppliers, placed it on the car during assembly and shipped it, discoveries of defects are often found years after the vehicle has been on the road. The same scenario has been played over and over in the food, pharmaceutical, defense, toy, electronics, and other industries.
The difference is those other industries are known to have more mature supply chain practices where they can track and trace every part or ingredient ever used in every product they have shipped. And when a part goes bad, they can recall and repair that defective component.
In software, track and trace practices are still in the earliest stages of maturity. In a 2014 survey of 3,300 development professionals, 63% stated that their organizations have incomplete or no records of the components used in their applications. This lack of traceability means that even when good components go bad, development and IT operations teams have no way to quickly find the defective component and replace it with a better, safer version — dramatically extending mean times to repair, or in the case of no action, growing their technical and security debt. And when applications with those defective components are in the hands of customers, the ability to “recall” the impacted software or distribute newer versions of the application are hindered.
Did he recommend a “Bomb”?
A Bill of Materials (BOM; pronounced “bomb”) is used in traditional manufacturing supply chains to list the suppliers and parts used in a product. According to Wikipedia, “The concept of a BOM is well-established in traditional manufacturing as part of supply chain management. A manufacturer uses a BOM to track the parts it uses to create a product. If defects are later found in a specific part, the BOM makes it easy to locate affected products.”
In Part 2 of this blog, “The Software BOM Squad“, I will introduce the importance of automating the creation of a “software bill of materials“ (Software BOM) to take inventory of the third party and open source components used to build an application. When software components age more like milk than wine, a software bill of materials can help you quickly identify where your 5,100 “bad” component were used.
Imagine that you are designing the 2016 Range Rover line of sport utility vehicles. Like all gas powered vehicles, each one needs an exhaust muffler. Range Rover likely has narrowed in on a preferred provider of mufflers. But imagine what would happen if the designers and factory line workers could pick from any one of 27 past versions of that muffler from their preferred provider for the new model year. Yup, choose any one — even if it is outdated, lower performance, does not meet current emission standards, or has a known defect. Order it, place it on the vehicle, then ship it.
We all realize this scenario would never happen. No one would select a known defective part for the product they are manufacturing. And who would knowingly choose the 10 year old version of a muffler without the latest advancements to support air quality? No organization would give a each of their designers and line workers free reign on procuring any one of 27 different mufflers for a single model year. Imagine the operational cost of testing the different mufflers. Imagine the maintenance cost of having different versions of the same part shipping. Worse yet, imagine the liability of shipping parts with known defects.
Land Rover is not taking this approach, but software development teams are.
27 Versions
My latest research report, the 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain, reveals that large software development organizations sourced an average of 27 different versions of open source components that they used in development last year. To be more specific, out of the top 100 open source components these companies downloaded from the internet in 2014, they averaged 27 versions of each component.
While auto manufacturers like Land Rover have preferred suppliers of vetted parts, the procurement of open source components is often more of a free-for-all. If an organization has 300 developers, they effectively have a procurement department of 300 for sourcing externally developed software components. If you have 4,000 developers, you have 4,000 performing procurement. Even as we all know only the latest version of a components is the most feature rich and of the highest quality and integrity.
Not all organizations allow free-for-all sourcing practices for components. Fifty-seven percent (57%) have open source policies in place as a method to guide developers toward higher quality parts with the fewest known defects or security vulnerabilities. Organizations like Google mandate the use of no more than two versions of a given open source component across their development teams.
Good Cost, Bad Cost
What does this mean for a software development organization — especially one focused on improving it’s DevOps practices? First the good news: developers are using open source components to speed time to release and improve innovation. Both good things.
The bad news: Organizations are building mountains of technical debt through poor software supply chain practices by sourcing an average of 27 versions of the same component, impacting quality, complexity, maintainability, supportability, etc. They are doing this across the top 100 components being downloaded in a single year which equates to managing over 2700 different versions (when an optimized practice would only require the 100 best).
Organizations are sourcing component “parts” for use in their applications that have up to 26 known better versions available (more features, fewer bugs, improved performance, etc.).
Organizations are downloading and using parts that are sometimes 9 years old, or even older (simple math: open source projects release 3 – 4 new versions of their components each year). They are electively using outdated parts.
Organizations are also downloading some versions with known, documented security vulnerabilities. They are electively using known vulnerable parts.
Net Innovation Through Improved Sourcing
While we often hear people tout a DevOps mantra of “even faster”, there is a consequence to pursuing speed at any cost: technical and security debt.
Open source components are enablers of speed. But free-for-all sourcing and use practices, add to technical and security debt that reduces “net innovation” and adds to the cost of operations. As technical debt grows, net innovation and business value drops.
If reducing the use 2,700 versions of 100 components was not motivating enough, consider this: the research also revealed that large development teams were consuming software components from over 7,600 external open source projects (suppliers). Including all versions of those components, they average organization consumed nearly 19,000 unique components in 2014.
Improved sourcing practices are just part of the overall story for improving net innovation and increasing business value. Improved sourcing practices can also enable more efficient operations, reduce mean times to remediation, and eliminate unplanned work for many DevOps practices. Improved sourcing practices have been employed across many industries resulting in sustained competitive advantages. Improved sourcing practices are part of a broader software supply chain management strategy.
Continuous Learning
There are so many lessons we can learn from other industries who have automated and optimized their supply chains — like Land Rover and other auto manufacturers. I’ll be sharing more of those lessons and perspectives from the 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain here this summer as well as expanding the discussion around “net innovation”. Stay tuned.
In its discussion of application quality and integrity, the report revealed that the average application includes 106 open source components. It is clear that the use of these components has benefited development tremendously in helping to speed time to market and improve innovation. While the benefits are undeniable, development teams are also delivering applications that are “insecure by design”. Of the 106 components per application, the report’s analysis revealed an average of 24 (i.e., 23%) have known critical or severe security vulnerabilities. Those same apps also showed an average of 9 restrictive license types (e.g., GPL, AGPL, LGPL).
By electively sourcing components with known vulnerabilities and potential license risks, software development teams are building up higher levels of technical and security debt. And in order to reduce some of that debt, unplanned and unscheduled rework is often required.
No Developer Intentionally Uses Bad Parts
I have never met a developer that intentionally wanted to use “bad” components in their applications. That said, I have also never met a developer that wanted to spend four hours researching the latest versions, open source licenses and known security vulnerabilities for components (including dependencies) they wanted to use in their applications. While 57% of development organizations have internal policies in place that direct “thou shall not use components with poor quality and integrity”, many have stated that the policies are not followed or are simply not enforced.
The problem is one of volume and velocity, while people clutch to old processes that simply can’t keep pace. The analysis in the 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain report revealed that billions of open source downloads occurred in 2014, of which 6.2% had known vulnerabilities (1 in 16 downloads). For some large companies, the volume of downloads exceeded 240,000 — where 15,000 (7.5%) had known security vulnerabilities. At these volumes, manual processes and paper-based policies to prevent poor quality or risky components from getting into your software have no possibility of keeping pace. While software development practices aim for higher velocity, through component-based development as well as Agile, continuous and DevOps practices, the processes to keep up with it have not changed enough.
The only way to keep pace with this velocity is through automation. And if we want to avoid unplanned rework associated with remediating known security vulnerabilities or selecting alternative components with approved license types, automation has to become the norm rather than the exception within development.
At Speed
“If I look at the mass, I will never act. If I look at the one, I will.” — Mother Teresa
Looking at the massive volume and velocity of open source and other artifact consumption can be discouraging and overwhelming. However, the volume and velocity within our software supply chains will not diminish—and without a new approach, the volume of unchecked quality and integrity of parts being consumed will continue to build up as technical debt.
Automation in areas of testing, build, and deployment has provided significant performance benefits. Likewise, investments in software supply chain automation have shown markedly improved efficiency and controlled risk, as the best practices in the 2015 Report illustrate. Automation can unleash the potential of an organization’s development capacity. Rarely is there such an opportunity to simultaneously increase speed, efficiency, and quality.
In order to improve the quality and integrity of components used in our applications, we need to release our clutch on old practices. We can further embrace automation across our software supply chains — and improve the quality of our applications — by considering these three steps:
1. Start with creating a software bill of materials for one application. Visibility into one application can help you better understand your current component usage. A number of free and paid services are available to help you create a software bill of materials within a few minutes. The bill of materials will help you to identify the unique component parts used within your application and the suppliers who contributed them. These reports list all components used, and several services also identify component age, popularity, version numbers, licenses, and known vulnerabilities.
2. Design approval processes to be frictionless, scalable, and automated. Manual reviews of components and suppliers cannot keep pace with the current volume and velocity of consumption. Your organization must not only define your policies for supplier and part selection but also find practical ways to enforce them without slowing down development or inadvertently encouraging workarounds. Policies must be agile enough to keep pace with modern development. Strive to automate policy enforcement and minimize drag on developers.
3. Enable developer decision support. Developers are primary consumers of components in software supply chains. They initiate every component request. Help developers by automating the availability of information on component versions, age, popularity, licenses, and known vulnerabilities within their existing development tools so it is easy to pick the best components from the start. By selecting the highest-quality components from the highest-quality suppliers early, you will improve developer productivity and reduce costs.
The previous blog in this series was, Fewer and Better Suppliers. Next up, I will be reviewing Visibility and Traceability practices across the software supply chain with more commentary from the 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain Report.
This past week, I had the opportunity to catch up with some more industry thought leaders at the DevOpsDays DC event in our nation’s capital. This was the first major DevOps Days event to feature a large audience of government participants. It was an awesome event and is certainly going to be on my must-attend list for next year.
First off for the series, I had the chance to chat with Nathen Harvey, the Community Director at Chef. Nathen also did a great job leading the organizing committee for DevOps Days DC.
In this episode of the DevOps Leadership Series, Nathen illustrates some recurrent topics he noticed at DevOpsDays DC. Nathen ensures us that government is ready for DevOps, enterprises are ready for DevOps, and small businesses and web innovators are ready for DevOps. Then he highlights how we need to create high velocity organizations that are safe, scalable, and humane for our teams.
https://youtu.be/hdUl8-d1za4
Next, I had the pleasure of catching up with Greg Elin, the Executive Director at GovReady and former Chief Data Officer at the FCC. What really stood out to Greg at the event was how many people already have their DevOps “sea legs.” He notes the number of different organizations that are comfortable with DevOps, and are familiar with its language and concepts.
https://youtu.be/XoZ4PGIAZx4
Finally, I caught up with Dave Johnson, Senior Technical Director at Ansible. Dave shares that “the market really is not dominated yet by any particular player in this (DevOps) space.” Dave explains when he first entered the industry he thought the IT world was dominated by open source and commercial technologies. However, when talking to the industry at large now, he found most the enterprises aren’t yet doing anything yet for automation, and most enterprises are still tackling their problems with humans.
https://youtu.be/ky51j1-fNsU
Next up in the series, you’ll hear from John Willis (Co-Author of the upcoming DevOps Cookbook) and Leon Fayer (Vice President at OmniTI).
If you have missed any of the other videos from this series, you can find them here. (We’re up to 15 so far).
Since releasing the 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain Report, there has been a lot of great discussion across the industry on best practices for managing the complexity introduced by the volume and velocity of the components used across your software supply chain.
Today I want to focus on the huge ecosystem of open source projects (“suppliers”) that feed a steady stream of innovative components into our software supply chains. In the Java ecosystem alone, there are now over 108,000 suppliers of open source components. Across all component types available to developers (e.g., RubyGems, NuGet, npm, Bower, PyPI, etc.), estimates now reach over 650,000 suppliers of open source projects.
Source: ModuleCounts.com
However, like in traditional manufacturing, not all suppliers deliver parts of comparable quality and integrity. My latest research, the 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain Report, shows that some open source projects use restrictive licenses and vulnerable sub-components, while other projects are far more diligent at updating the overall quality of their components. Choosing the best and fewest suppliers can improve the quality and integrity of the applications we deliver to our customers.
While I am hosting a webinar next week to share many of the detailed report findings, I wanted to share a few of the more meaningful stats here.
Your 7,600 Suppliers
My research for the report revealed many new perspectives on “suppliers” across the software supply chains. First of all, I saw that the average large development organization consumed over 240,000 open source components last year — sourced from over 7,600 open source projects.
Average number of open source component downloads per organization in calendar 2014
On the surface, the huge reliance on open source projects is a great thing. Development teams have chosen to not write those pieces themselves, but have sourced the needed components from outside suppliers. This practice speeds development, enables more innovation, and ensures time-to-release goals are achieved. The use of open source is so prolific today, few of us could ever imagine reducing the use of those components and their suppliers in the future.
At the same time that we benefit from open source, our high paced, high volume consumption practices don’t allow us the time needed to do the due diligence on the suppliers or open source projects where we source our component parts from.
Average number of known vulnerabilities downloaded by organization in calendar 2014.
For example, of the 240,000 average component downloads in 2014, the same businesses sourced an average of 15,000 components that included known security vulnerabilities. In many cases, developers were downloading vulnerable component versions, when safer versions of those same components were available from the open source projects. While no one intends to download components with known vulnerabilities, the problem is exacerbated due to the lack the visibility into a better recommended version.
Fewer Suppliers, Less Context Switching
Choosing an open source project supplier should be considered an important strategic decision in organizations because changing a supplier (“open source project”) used is far more effort than swapping out a specific component. Like traditional suppliers, open source projects have good and bad practices impacting the overall quality of their component parts.
Traditional manufacturing supply chains intentionally select specific parts from approved suppliers. They also rely on formalized sourcing and procurement practices. This practice also focuses the organization on using the best and fewest suppliers — an effort that improves quality, reduces context switching, and also accelerates mean time to repair when defects are discovered. One industry example from the report describes how Toyota manages 125 suppliers for their Prius to help sustain competitive advantages over GM who manages over 800 suppliers for the Chevy Volt.
By contrast, development teams working with software supply chains often rely on an unchecked variety of supply, where each developer or development team can make their own sourcing and procurement decisions. The effort of managing over 7,600 suppliers introduces a drag on development and is contrary to their need to develop faster as part of agile, continuous delivery and devops practices.
Coming to Terms
When you come to terms with the volume of consumption and the massive ecosystem of suppliers you can source your components from, you quickly realize it is impossible to address this issue with a manual review process. Any organizations clutching to these outdated manual practices are will continue to be outgunned by the velocity by their software supply chains.
Just as traditional manufacturing supply chains have turned to automation, software development teams need to take the same approach by further automating their software supply chains. Information about suppliers and the quality of their projects needs to be made available to developers at the time they are selecting components. Information about the latest versions, features, licenses, known vulnerabilities, popularity of versions being used, and the cadence of new releases should be made available to developers in an automated way. Automating the availability of this information about suppliers can lead to better and fewer suppliers being used.
Be sure to read the full 2015 State of the Software Supply Chain Report for more information about open source suppliers and organizations sourcing practices. The report also highlights current and best practices being used in organizations that are managing their use of suppliers that feed their software supply chains.
To hear more about the overall report findings and industry best practices, please join me on Wednesday, June 24th (1pm ET) for our webinar.
During my second day at DevOpsDays DC, I had the opportunity to catch up with a couple more industry thought leaders. First up, John Willis, (@botchagalupe) DevOps Days core organizer and co-author the upcoming “DevOps Cookbook”.
In this episode of DevOps Leadership Series, John highlights his first introduction to DevOps and the journey it has taken him on, and what about the current state of DevOps makes him excited. He says DevOps is really happening everywhere. Today large organizations and CIO’s of government agencies are now experimenting with DevOps at all stages. He references legacy companies that do not necessarily have “aggressive IT”, and how they now want to share their DevOps experiences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU1O2bCU_hc
After that, I had the chance to chat with Leon Fayer, (@papa_fire) Vice President at OmniTI, following his DevOps Days DC presentation. Leon illustrates the things he found most interesting from the DevOpsDays Conference. He noted that a lot of people have started to pay attention to the monetary strategies, and how to monitor from top-to-bottom in a DevOps fashion. Leon was happy to see that people are now more generally interested in how to generate and collect data more accurately to solve their problems.
