The intro performed its purposes well in terms of introducing the topic and providing an abstract of the session. Michael does a good job explaining DevOps and giving attendees plenty of starting points for their future DevOps careers.
Maybe just a mismatch from my side but the explanation of "this is how Linux permissions work" was just too much for me and I had to leave Maybe still useful for total Linux beginners though. Also please give Saltstack the recognition it deserves: the possibilities of Puppet (with or without salt-ssh) but the ease of use of Ansible.
Some parts (like linux permissions/groups) were just too basic. Other parts were very insightful.
I think it would be better if this talk was less technical.
I liked the introduction about devops and the things that belong to devops.
But the talk was pretty slow and monotone which was the reason I lost focus half away. Especially at the filesystem explaining parts I was bored and left.
I think your talk covered too many things and took place on too many different levels (ranging from very abstract and general, to very concrete and specific and anything in between). I could distinguish at least three different talks that were mixed together.
The first one was a talk giving a comprehensive overview of what DevOps entails, the second one was a talk about DevOps tools and practices, the third one was an introduction to server management for developers.
My central point of feedback: Focus on giving one talk ;-)
Secondary to that, but still quite important: pay more attention to your talk structure. Where the talk can be complex and contain lots of fine grained points, the structure should be simple and easily understandable. Probably bringing focus to your talk will already improve your talk structure a lot.
Your talk contained a couple of great take-aways. Unfortunately many of them got lost in the vast amount of information you were sharing with your audience.
The talk was not so exciting, you kept with basics and didn't bring a nice and renewing experience. I suggest you to find something about devops that you really find interesting and focus on it, maybe you'll save some time on showing things which are already there for a few years.
Thanks for the feedback all. You're right, the talk didn't really have an identity and was a little bit all over the place. If you're interested, I took a look at the session and wrote up the mistakes I made and how I can rectify them next time here - https://michaelheap.com/anatomy-of-a-bad-talk/
(It seems like I can't comment without a rating either. I'll give it the current average to keep things square)
I had some completely different expectations of this talk. Just read your blogpost, and looking forward to your next more technical talk. One reaction on that blogpost: you are a very peaceful speaker, but for me personally I consider that more of a positive than a negative.
Comments
Comments are closed.
The intro performed its purposes well in terms of introducing the topic and providing an abstract of the session. Michael does a good job explaining DevOps and giving attendees plenty of starting points for their future DevOps careers.
Maybe just a mismatch from my side but the explanation of "this is how Linux permissions work" was just too much for me and I had to leave Maybe still useful for total Linux beginners though. Also please give Saltstack the recognition it deserves: the possibilities of Puppet (with or without salt-ssh) but the ease of use of Ansible.
It was an okay talk. I had the feeling that sometimes you were repeating yourself a bit too much.
Some parts (like linux permissions/groups) were just too basic. Other parts were very insightful.
I think it would be better if this talk was less technical.
I liked the introduction about devops and the things that belong to devops.
But the talk was pretty slow and monotone which was the reason I lost focus half away. Especially at the filesystem explaining parts I was bored and left.
I think your talk covered too many things and took place on too many different levels (ranging from very abstract and general, to very concrete and specific and anything in between). I could distinguish at least three different talks that were mixed together.
The first one was a talk giving a comprehensive overview of what DevOps entails, the second one was a talk about DevOps tools and practices, the third one was an introduction to server management for developers.
My central point of feedback: Focus on giving one talk ;-)
Secondary to that, but still quite important: pay more attention to your talk structure. Where the talk can be complex and contain lots of fine grained points, the structure should be simple and easily understandable. Probably bringing focus to your talk will already improve your talk structure a lot.
Your talk contained a couple of great take-aways. Unfortunately many of them got lost in the vast amount of information you were sharing with your audience.
The talk was not so exciting, you kept with basics and didn't bring a nice and renewing experience. I suggest you to find something about devops that you really find interesting and focus on it, maybe you'll save some time on showing things which are already there for a few years.
Thanks for the feedback all. You're right, the talk didn't really have an identity and was a little bit all over the place. If you're interested, I took a look at the session and wrote up the mistakes I made and how I can rectify them next time here - https://michaelheap.com/anatomy-of-a-bad-talk/
(It seems like I can't comment without a rating either. I'll give it the current average to keep things square)
I had some completely different expectations of this talk. Just read your blogpost, and looking forward to your next more technical talk. One reaction on that blogpost: you are a very peaceful speaker, but for me personally I consider that more of a positive than a negative.
It was more like a motivational speech