Puppet, CFEngine, Tripwire, etc. all play well with other Linux distros as well. If you're talking about just using RedHat Satellite to manage such a beast, get out of 2001, RH really missed the boat on pushing such potential in the Enterprise space and only over past year seem to be winking at Puppet. If you're talking about their efforts on OpenStack, great, but you still need that next layer down.
I don't necessarily see this as Yahoo's true intent (yet), but it is easier to see this mindset for the likes of Best Buy who is continuing to try and thin the ranks.
-A Jaded Board Member
I have been managing IT Operations teams for ~10yrs now (with a rooted background in SysAdmin), and more often than not, in my own experience, it is the organizational culture that often strongly correlates to the work output of a collective team. I have worked on companies that paid absolutely ass and were not overly generous with there employees, yet people understood the purpose, the mission, and their role, and gave 110%. I have worked at companies that were more than generous with payroll and side benefits, and folks slacked off.
Without knowing you or your background (nor the respective company), I can say that folks are often cognizant of the extremes they can get away with at work. If you (or the company as a whole) conveys an easy-going atmosphere where even the slackers are well tolerated, well, water sinks to the lowest point. This can often be detrimental to others around them, as it results in "Well if they aren't going the extra mile, why should I?" I believe just about anyone who is reading this has had that very thought cross their mind at one point or another, and it can be a valid one. Giving someone free massages, or cupcakes, or even a hooker aren't exactly motivational items - actually, they work the other way, in that encouraging folks to "take a break" from things, these same folks who even when working you are suggesting aren't putting in a sound effort.
Solution? Again, without know you or the org, do away with the massages, and most other extraordinary benefits that cost the company money, and instead convert this to regular financial bonus incentive. Make a big point on how performance relates to money, and more times than not, I find folks will go above and beyond to earn the extra incentive. You may have a few bad apples you clearly need the stick, but between the two, I'd suggest you may be on the way to success.
Best of luck!
U.S. telephone and cable companies have arranged a 'negotiated truce' in which cable incumbents enjoy a de facto monopoly on high-speed broadband service, while Verizon and AT&T focus primarily on their wireless platforms.
Mainstream media is starting to pick up on this same very notion, with Verizon's latest quarterly report covered by the Boston Globe here which basically highlights the fact that Comcast and Verizon are getting cozy rather than competing. "Verizon Wireless struck a deal to market cable broadband from Comcast and Time Warner Cable in its stores, a move consumer advocates see as a capitulation by Verizon that will leave many areas with just one viable choice for home broadband: cable."
We as taxpaying Americans supporting these monopolies lose out on both fronts while this trend continues
For online companies such as Facebook, the model is hardly different. For companies that give away applications for your tablet or only charge you a small amount of money, this can be an appealing revenue source, whether as a secondary one beyond the $1 they charge you or even the primary one.
Given all this, I tend to question that when building a product such as this, I have a hard time believing Path or any similar companies even remotely care to try and NOT see your information since it blocks them from such sources. Only when the media yanks the covers off do things get more interesting. This lets them assemble a web of contacts which has value, whether for immediate return or as an "asset" for the organization should they ever sell it (and revise their privacy notices).
Lets see how things go once the dust settles and whether they have committed to any of these things.
Their are of course numerous technical solutions to the problem, including cross-site replication, etc. The challenge is the more timely/accurate the replication, usually the higher the cost (bandwdith/limit latency expenses). When the finance folks start to see these numbers, or the customer, suddenly it becomes less "urgent" to them. The trade-off is often times a subtle expectation of HA due to potential direct impact on company profitability, but nobody wants to actually pay for it. I am aware of way to-many orgs that cut corners in this area and simply lie to the customer.
Hence, to your point, hedge your bets and do the best you can with regular backups
From there, the standard could mature into 360 views and maybe one day in my lifetime 3D. Baby steps
For example, when working for one of the big 401k's, the first DR exercise evaluated the data center completely being leveled and re-locating both technical services as well as the ~300 on site employees to another location. Long story short, the first exercise of this was scheduled for 2 days, and while it worked, we identified dozens of issues. We scheduled the next test 6 months later and addressed what we believed were all of the issues; on next test, we ran into perhaps ~10 issues. The next test we scheduled 3 months ahead and ran into ~2 issues. All awhile, things continue to change and innovation is occurring, change process control is ensuring that new things are being factored into the continual DR process/exercise. For a small telecom I worked for, the same type of testing was accomplished with ~2-3 week turn around time (smaller team, less change points, more dynamic response), but with same underlying principles.
Documentation of such things is critical, and employee turnover is often one of the greatest risk points. Having a diversified staff with overlapping knowledge should minimize the later risk to some degree, and if implemented fully, risk should be diminished.
So how does all this tie back into maint? Well, it is anticipated that if any system runs long enough, their will be opportunity for failure. It is preparation for when such failure occurs, one can balance the capability of providing a measured window of downtime (if any) and provide some degree of predictability (i.e. I test once a quarter). The counter to this can certainly be overzealous maint, so certainly their is a point to being reasonable. For example, what many of go through with our cars - the dealer wants us to come in every 3k miles for an oil change, whereas realistically most mfr's and my own experience dictates that ~5k (if not longer depending on circumstance) is much more cost effective. Either way, this is providing some degree of confidence that this should prolong engine life.