Having worked in both DevOps (or Ops as we called it in 2002), there really was a belief that the developers were stupid, and they'd burn the whole place down if we gave them any leeway. As a developer, I've seen DevOps as a frustrating gate at times. The only things I think can fix this divide are communication and built trust. (and probably less assumed malice)
> Having worked in both DevOps (or Ops as we called it in 2002), there really was a belief that the developers were stupid, and they'd burn the whole place down if we gave them any leeway.
I've been on both sides of this divide myself, but have spent the last fifteen years or so as a developer. In my experience, developers will burn the whole place down if we're given the chance.
We're focused on writing code, and it's boring to write the same code over and over: we want to write new code, in exciting ways, and we are surprised when it fails in exciting ways.
We're focused on delivering features; our incentives are all about getting it done, not about getting it done well (our industry doesn't even have a consistent view of what's good or bad: note that C/C++ are still used in 2019) or supportably. Some organisations really try had to properly incentivise developers, but I've not seen it really work yet. DevOps is an attempt to incentivise developers by getting us to buy into ops. I've read a lot of success stories, but not seen a lot of success with my own eyes.
I do my best to be diligent, I do my best to wear my Ops hat — yet I still fall down. I don't think that it's unavoidable, but so far I've not avoided it, and I've not seen others avoid it either.
