Sysadmin's dilemma - RE: be as generous as Bill Gates
G'day -
-----Original Message-----
- Windows sysadmins are cheap, abundant, and ineffective. - Unix sysadmins are expensive, rare, and effective.
This is true, but even more so *nix systems don't fall over as often.
It's the classic sysadmin's dilemma. MS-Windows admins are running around like headless chooks trying to put out brush fires caused by poor choice of operating system, whereas *nix admins don't look like they have to work very hard at all - because the problems are fewer and easier to fix (giving them more time to deal with even more complex problems).
From where I am I have seen many examples that are contrary to your stereotypes.
And what exactly is the dilemma - to be effective or ineffective, or cheap or not? Regards Slav "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."
From where I am I have seen many examples that are contrary to your stereotypes.
That's unfortunate. Nevertheless, I suggest that properly researched studies are somewhat superior to anecdotal opinions. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), MBA, GCertPM mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
G'day -
-----Original Message----- Nevertheless, I suggest that properly researched studies are somewhat superior to anecdotal opinions.
I would be very interested in scientific studies that explain how people become lousy sysadmins. Any pointers? Cheers Slav "This e-mail and any attachments to it (the "Communication") is, unless otherwise stated, confidential, may contain copyright material and is for the use only of the intended recipient. If you receive the Communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete the Communication and the return e-mail, and do not read, copy, retransmit or otherwise deal with it. Any views expressed in the Communication are those of the individual sender only, unless expressly stated to be those of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited ABN 11 005 357 522, or any of its related entities including ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited (together "ANZ"). ANZ does not accept liability in connection with the integrity of or errors in the Communication, computer virus, data corruption, interference or delay arising from or in respect of the Communication."
I would be very interested in scientific studies that explain how people become lousy sysadmins. Any pointers?
They become MS-Windows admins, and don't escape. Although a decade old, the following study linked illustrates the problem. "In the survey, Linux admin salaries were slightly higher than Windows admins, with Linux at $71,400 per admin, and Windows at $68,500 per admin. But Linux admins took care of an average of 44 servers and Windows admins an average of 10. So the salary per processing unit was Linux, $12,010, and Windows, $52,060." (quote from http://www.zdnet.com/news/linux-tco-edge-lower-labor-costs/297046, linked in my earlier post)/ http://www.evanbauer.com/essays/LinuxTCO.pdf The issue is that MS-Windows servers break more often, are harder to fix, and actually are pretty obtuse when it comes to learning-whilst-doing. If you want to put a sysadmin in a life where they're constantly admin-ing a handful of boxes with no end of errors and downtime, give then a few MS-Windows webservers to look after. If only Dante Alighieri had been around in contemporary times. There would have been a special level of hell where a person spent eternity as a MS-Windows server sysadmin. A modern trial of Sisyphus, if you like. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), MBA, GCertPM mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) <slav.pidgorny@anz.com> wrote:
I would be very interested in scientific studies that explain how people become lousy sysadmins. Any pointers?
No, but the investigation would need to start with more precise research questions. A related but more interesting question is: what criteria that can be applied during the selection process are most strongly predictive of good job performance? For example, I've read on a number of Web sites, none of them with good references to back up the claim, that job interviews are generally not effective in selecting good candidates for positions. I'm sure a literature review has been done and the results would be at least mildly interesting. Of course there are different kinds of job interviews, CV evaluation criteria, reference checks and other strategies available to potential employers.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:02:08PM +1000, Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) wrote:
And what exactly is the dilemma - to be effective or ineffective, or cheap or not?
the dilemma - more of an irony, really - is that a good sysadmin often looks like they're not doing anything, because they're not panicing, and their systems don't fall over all the time. the irony is that a sysadmin is only noticed when something goes wrong. if you do your job well so that things don't go wrong, some bean-counter will start to think you're not needed. they won't discover they were wrong until six months or so after you're no longer around to do all the little preventative maintainence things that stop tiny problems from cascasing into gigantic problems. and even then, they won't see the connection. the irony is that the crappier you are, the more it gets noticed how hard you're working (because you're working stupid rather than working smart), and the more valuable you seem to people who have no real idea what it is that sysadmins actually do, anyway. since these people control the paychecks, doing a quietly good job can be detrimental to your continuing employment...so make the effort to make sure that someone - your direct boss at least - has some idea of what it is that you do. a corollary to this is that while the really difficult things you do (the ones you're personally very proud of having achieved) probably won't get noticed at all, you will get lavishly praised for the most trivial, easy, no-brainer things that you can do without breaking a sweat. there's no point in explaining how trivial the latter is because they'll think you're being modest...and as for explaining how difficult the former was, they just won't/can't get it. learn to accept this, you can't fix it - it's just something weird that non-geeks do. one of their many quirks and foibles. all of this is inherent to the nature of the job. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #102: Power company testing new voltage spike (creation) equipment
On Thu, June 13, 2013 9:03 pm, Craig Sanders wrote:
a corollary to this is that while the really difficult things you do (the ones you're personally very proud of having achieved) probably won't get noticed at all, you will get lavishly praised for the most trivial, easy, no-brainer things that you can do without breaking a sweat.
Absolutely correct Craig, excellent explanation (and yes, it's more of an irony rather than a dilemma). XKCD (as Randall often does) illustrated the issue quite well. http://xkcd.com/664/ -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), MBA, GCertPM mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 13/06/13 9:03 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 03:02:08PM +1000, Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) wrote:
And what exactly is the dilemma - to be effective or ineffective, or cheap or not? the dilemma - more of an irony, really - is that a good sysadmin often looks like they're not doing anything, because they're not panicing, and their systems don't fall over all the time.
the irony is that a sysadmin is only noticed when something goes wrong.
if you do your job well so that things don't go wrong, some bean-counter will start to think you're not needed. they won't discover they were wrong until six months or so after you're no longer around to do all the little preventative maintainence things that stop tiny problems from cascasing into gigantic problems. and even then, they won't see the connection. So true, and that's the same for a lot of important jobs - when they're being done well, no one notices, and the job can even get a little "dull". Such is life. :) Certainly not restricted to sysadmin work either.
-- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com
Craig Sanders wrote:
if you do your job well so that things don't go wrong, some bean-counter will start to think you're not needed.
"We've had this system for three years without any faults so far, so clearly extending the warranty is a waste of money."
participants (6)
-
Craig Sanders -
Jason White -
Lev Lafayette -
Pidgorny, Slav (GEUS) -
Tony Langdon -
Trent W. Buck