Thanks, indeed I think there are many parallels with other areas. I will check it out.

I mean, the person in question had "hardening EKS" on their CV. EKS still means that the whole data plane is your responsibility. How can you harden a cluster without understanding the foundation of container security (isolation primitives, capabilities, etc.)? Workload security is very much part of the job.

I mean the moment some pod will need to run with some privilege (say, a log forwarder which gets host logs), and you need to "harden" the cluster, what do you do if you don't understand the concept of capabilities? I will tell you what, because I asked this very question, and the answer was "copy the logs elsewhere", which is the "make it work with the hammer solution" that again shows the damage of not understanding.

I am with you about different scopes, skillsets etc. But here we were interviewing people with a completely matching skillset on paper.

A cloud VM, just shut it down and you're done.

If this flexibility is needed, and it's an "if", a dedicated server does the same. But even a cloudVM is already lower level compared to other services (which are even more abstract) - like EKS, SQS, etc.

The value an organization provides to customers should be the primary focus of the business, the rest is a means to sharpen that focus.

In my experience this often translates in values that flows to AWS, while the company giving value to customers is stuck with millions of cloud bills each month, and a large engineering footprint that eventually needs to cut, leaving fewer and fewer people working on the product.

That said, I acknowledge that cloud has business reasons to exist, I wrote an entire other post about my hate for it, but I still acknowledge that. However there are some myths that finally are getting dispelled (outsource infra and focus on your product).

Oh yeah I see...

As some old philosopher once said: "shit's fucked, yo".

Seems to be appropriate here.

But you know what the kernel is. You know that syscalls are a thing, you know what role the kernel performs, you know that different filesystems have different properties (and pros and cons), etc..

You don't need to know the details, perhaps, but you can't ignore the fundamental theoretical concepts of kernel and OS. You might not know the whole detail of the boot procedure, but if your machines are stuck on boot, you know at least what to look for.

Here I was talking about equally foundational topics. There is nothing "above" - say - producing attestations and then verifying them. That's literally all there is to it, but if you don't understand the theory behind it, what exactly are you doing? As as I said, I don't care about the details, I didn't expect someone mentioning ciphers or timestamp authorities, transparency logs etc. All I would expect is "we produce a signature with a bunch of metadata and we verify it where we consume the artifact, so that we are sure that the artifact has the properties attested by the signature".

Not knowing this is like someone claiming that they administer Linux machines but can't explain what network interfaces are or how routing is determined. This is not a question of being expert on different layers, this is just being oblivious to those other layers completely.

I'd like to understand how self managing all the lower level components abstracted by the cloud is saving on headcount. Care to math that out for us?

Yeah I can see that.

However, you are now arguing a different point than I am getting from your original post. Maybe my fault in interpretation ofc, but the main difference (in my view) is:

You say "incompetent" and "less skilled" as general statements on senior engineers. Those statements are false.

You also say "missing the skills you are looking for" which is obviously true.

And the implication that before cloud, people developed the specific skills you need more naturally - because they had to. This makes sense and I believe it.

It depends. An EKS cluster can cost easily 20x what an equivalent cluster costs with same resources. The amount of people necessary to manage it is very close compared to a bare cluster, which depending on the scale can save hundreds of thousands or millions per year, therefore allowing extra headcount.

For example, a company I worked for had a team of 6 managing all their kubernetes cluster on rented dediservers. The infra costed around 50k/year. The same clusters on EKS could be managed by 4 people (maybe?), but would have costed easily 5-600k, especially since they were beefy machines, possibly even more. That amount of money would pay for 7-8 additional headcount in local hires.

Considering that in those clusters there were 40-50 postgres clusters, if moving those to RDS they would have probably looked at millions in cloud bills per year, and the effort to run those dB's once the manifests were developed was negligible (same team was managing them).
This was a tiny startup, with limited resources for internal tools and automation development.

So it's not like managing everything can save headcount, it's that not outsourcing everything can save so much money that largely compensates for more headcount, plus you are giving money to real people, who spend local and pay taxes.

You say "incompetent" and "less skilled" as general statements on senior engineers. Those statements are false.

I am saying that the competencies of people who grew up (professionally) with outsourced services are more superficial and give them way less understanding (and agency) on the systems they oversee. I make the opinionated argument that knowing which service to use in a cloud provider is not just a different skill from implementing that functionality "manually", but is hierarchical inferior, easier to acquire and less useful in general.

A weird parallel would be someone who hikes 100% of the time with a guide who takes care of orientation, camp setting etc., and someone who goes alone. If I am simply comparing the pictures they are showing me, I might not appreciate the difference, but if you asked me who I would trust to come hiking with me, I wouldn't have doubt, because I consider the skill "finding, choosing and listening to the guide" to be hierarchial inferior to "orient, set camp etc. by yourself".

So it's not just a matter of matching the skills I need, is actually a much broader argument about deskilling engineers.

I understand.

Obviously, "knowing which cloud services to enable" is a lesser skill than knowing how those services work. That is not a parallel or equal skill in any way.

But do you assume people are just going drrrrr brain off when they don't learn that one skillset you are accustomed to spotting?

Well, for the relatively small sample of Kubernetes experts I interviewed, basically any topic beyond "you use this tool" was a disaster, including Kubernetes knowledge.
I am not selective, it's not like I expect a specific skillset, but what would you think if someone with a decade of platform security doesn't understand cryptography and supply chain, Linux permissions, Kubernetes foundational concepts, container isolation or networking? At some point the question is legitimate, what are you expert in? The answer I have been able to give myself so far is "stitching together services that do stuff" and "recommend what the documentation/standard recommends".
I consider myself satisfied to have somewhat decent knowledge in some of those areas, I am not expecting someone understanding all of that, but none of them? Maybe from someone who just joined the industry.

Does a senior mechanic need to understand the physics of piston design to be a great mechanic

I would argue that if senior mechanic doesn't understand the physics of piston design at least on some degree he's not a great mechanic. Obviously mechanic doesn't need understanding on metallurgy, CAD models and a ton of other deeper level stuff just like an IT engineer doesn't need to know on a deep level how circuit boards are designed or how CPU die manufacturing process works. But both benefit greatly when they understand why something is built the way it is.

I'm also an systems engineer of sorts and have worked with software engineers. And I've had requests like "Can't you just set 'bind-address = 0.0.0.0 on mysql-server and disable firewall" on a directly internet-facing machine and then received complaints when I'm "making things more difficult" from "senior software" -titles. Sure, I can't write the code they're doing, or at least it would take me a crapload of more time to do that but on the other hand there's guys who have so very narrow understanding on anything they work with that it makes me wonder how they can do their work at all in the first place.

Of course no one can master everything in any field but I find it concerning that a lot of guys just press the buttons more or less randomly until their thing works without any clue on what they actually did and how it might affect on different parts of the house of cards they're building.

The main factor, IMO, is that everyone wants good engineers but good engineers don't change jobs that often.

Meaning most of the candidates you interview will suck in one way or another.

And everyone calls themselves "senior" nowadays.

I have the opposite experience, when I was doing interviews I just skipped the very obviously underskilled people (which, IIRC were in the single digits) and interviewed pretty much everyone.

For context, I'm the main architect and dev of the company I was hiring for. Most of the candidates were horrible.

I get what you’re saying, but also see the other side - these services exist and aren’t ever going away, so the level of knowledge you need about these to use them at least competently is significantly reduced.

What their existence does mean is that there are thousands of developers who wouldn’t ever touch or learn any of this stuff previously are now actually learning it and using it. That’s a positive thing. Not everyone needs to be an expert on the inner workings of everything that a service provides unless you’re specifically looking for an expert.

Also…..people lie on CVs and cover letters. If your ad has buzzwords and technology X, Y, and Z, then you should expect people with little to no knowledge of at least one of those things to have all 3 on their resume.

I will say more, the same exact team that spends time managing EKS clusters could manage self-managed clusters and have money to spare for additional hires.

Your suggestions is a large expansion of skillset needed for your alternative to the cloud solution. Your own experience in attempting to hire workers should point to the reason thats a bad idea. You're going to need even higher skilled people, and they are going to ask for significantly more money.

I wouldn't say it's a large expansion of skillset, meaning it's not massive. But yes, indeed it is problematic to find people. It is because this is a vicious circle in which companies are digging their own graves by eliminating a market for those people, which in turn means that those who would want to hire some can't find them easily, leading to outsourcing instead. Do this for 15 years across the whole industry and it stops being an option, which is pretty much where we are today.
That said, training and upskilling is always a possibility for companies who invest on their own employees and are playing the long game...

I partially agree, but not only we are looking for experts of that thing, we are also looking for security experts, and security knowledge is very much meta-knowledge.
A software developer might not care at all about - say - how the CI/CD works, because all they care is that the thing builds the code. A security expert generally has a broader scope, and their job is not functional, which means their job is exactly understanding the thing to be able to model the risks around it. So they might not care of all the tools used in that CI/CD or the exact details of the steps, but they should understand the execution flow, the way third party dependencies are pulled, verified, consumed, the authorization model etc.

There is no such thing of security professional who doesn't understand - at least from an academic point of view - the overall setup of a thing they worked with.

If I take the image attestation example I made in the post, I consider the "inner workings" to be the cryptographic details, such as ciphers and their working mechanisms, or the exact details of the way that attestation can be verified offline, or what exactly is computed and how. I am OK with someone not knowing this. But not understanding the whole flow? Well, without this what's left? Copying the 3 lines of code that do something from the Github documentation? Any software engineer can very much do that, what is your contribution as a security specialist?

…..people lie on CVs and cover letters. If your ad has buzzwords and technology X, Y, and Z

Totally agree. It is very likely, although the more people I interview, the more I think that they are not lying from their perspective. It's that people can legitimately make a career today by stitching together stuff with scotch tape, spending years by just by doing that and effectively have little to show for those years. But from their perspective, they might be experienced in that stuff, maybe?

Everyone calls themselves senior because that's the only type of position recruiters look for.

I'm a mid level dev, but I'm encouraged by recruiters to apply for senior positions because their clients are actually looking for a range of levels