3474 posts • joined 31 May 2010
I am tempted to downvote you on principle. Your post implies that Oracle has in the past cared about Java or its user base. Or for that matter that Oracle may have at some point during its existance cared about the user base of any of its technologies.
I have yet to be exposed to evidence of this. Even third or fourth hand. Does anyone know a guy who knew a guy that Oracle cared about? Anyone?
giving no fucks since the beforetime.
I didn't want to be a "sysadmin" myself. I wanted to "make comptuers talk to eachother, and get them to do things in a coordinated fashion." (I later discovered that what I wanted to do with build beowulf clusters; sadly, I do not build beowulf clusters for a living.)
The rest just sort of...happened...
I never said Python was the best; I lack the diversity of experience to reliably choose a "best" language. Of the dozen or so that I, personally code in - including Java - Python is the one I enjoy coding in. Mostly because I enjoy the diversity of use cases for the code. It compiles - so I don't need an interpreter - and yet I can also use it as web scripts, shell scripts, etc.
It is a simple language that is easy to learn, code in a maintainable fashion and addresses all of the use cases I run across on a regular basis.
It isn't "the best," but it is my favourite.
"You will spend you life coding scripts and apps in two dozen languages, but also dealing with whinging users" is not how anyone sells the career of systems administration. Why would a fresh-out-of-high-school kid with no experience in systems administration know that beforehand? After all, it's derided as "digital janitors" and nothing more. Taking care of hardware and operating systems. "Simple, easy, unworthy of real effort." Sounded fun to an 18 year old; make money during the day, do real work as a hobby!
Re: "Java was my first experience of object-oriented programming"
You poor bastard!
Re: Your argument's flaw
Don't think "staying on at University" solves this; plenty of folks don't include the VM binaries with the application, still use applets or otherwise commit unpardonable sins. When I have to ship working Java code, these are not sins I commit...and I didn't finish University. It isn't the education; it's the asshat behind the keyboard.
Them folks with them fancy duh-grees still can't code for shit. The ability to pay attention to security, usability, lifecycle and maintenance isn't something that is easily taught. It's wrapped up in the deeper neuroses of "being able to think about people other than oneself." If you can't tear yourself away from the mitror for a moment, you never get time to think about the poor bastards that have to use your code.
Java amplifies douchebagitis because it's a secruity nightmare wrapped in a versioning problem.
I can code in Java just fine, thank you. I never did get the chance to stop doing so. Next?
Re: I beg to differ
I need to don some passive aggressive here.
To all the whigners bellyaching about my tearing the language up, how many of you read past the first sentance? Did I or did I not explain that hating a logical construct such as a language is irrational, that I recognise this, but hate the damned thing anyways? It is supposed to demonstrate that association of something inanimate or conceptual with a group of people you dislike can in fact cause the irrational response of hating the inanimate object (or concept.)
Which is a metaphor for every IT flamewar ever.
And I do hate Java. Not because the language is shite - it isn't...it's a language FFS - but because the end result of "Java" has been nothing but pain for over a decade. So instead of taking away "zomfgwtf he insulted the sacred!!!!", maybe folks should focuse on why I chose to do so. The lesson to be learned lies therein. :)
Re: Thank you for this.
Mama said "one idea per article." And the answer is Python.
Not despising corporations is hard for me. There is an innate distrust that I hold against people who are financially motivate to screw me over and take all my money.
That said, I have an SII, a Samsung Netbook and who only knows what else from them...
Samsung is growing on me. As a company, I find them less offensive than some...and increasingly I find myself buying their widgets. Then they go ahead and do something like this.
Well, I'll be.
MIght there be a consumer electronics company worth not actively despising after all?
Re: Careful with your evolution mumbo jumbo.
Actually, you'd be completely wrong. All extant members of homo sapiens sapiens (the only subspecies of the only remaining species (homo sapiens) from genus homo) can trace their lineage to mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam.
Mitochondrial eve - contrary to the biblical reference in her name - was not the only woman of her time. She was however the most "fit:" all extant humans are her descendants; no lineages survived from any of her contemporaries. Similarly, Y chromosome Adam - far from the only man of his day - was simply the most fit. Adam lived about 142,000 years ago, and we are all his descendants.
It is generally considered that this occurred before the “out of Africa” migration. Once out of Africa both European and Asian Cro Magnons interbred with other hominids. Europeans with Neanderthals and Asians with both Neanderthals and Denisovans. There is no evidence of gene transfer between Neanderthals or Denisovans to the Cro Magnons living in Africa at the time. (Though with modern intermixing this is becoming less and less relevant.)
So there are exceptionally small genetic deviations between the three primary populations of humans based on horizontal gene transfer between the three extant human subspecies shortly after the “out of Africa” migration, however it did not affect either our mitochondrial or Y chromosome lineages. (Which is to say, the genes are pretty dilute in today’s populations!)
You can always attempt to prove that you are a separate species. Go to https://www.23andme.com/ and get your DNA sequenced. If you are a separate subspecies (or if your mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome differs from the rest of humanity) then I promise you, the geneticists will be all over you like white on rice. Until then, suppositions of subspeciation within humanity have no basis in fact. They are as erroneous as the bullshit Aryan race theories espoused by certain madmen, and potentially as dangerous.
There is simply no evidence whatsoever to support subspeciation within the only extant lineage of humans.
Re: Careful with your evolution mumbo jumbo.
Since all of genus homo is classified as hominidae (great apes), then it stands to reason that all of our antecedents up to (and perhaps slightly predating) the last common ancestor would also be considered “apes”.
All hominidae (including all members of genus homo) share certain physiological traits in common that differentiate us from other primates (and lemurs, to whom we are also closely related.) Homo is most closely related to pan (chimps and bonobos,) with gorilla and pongo (orangutans) rounding out the extant species.
Now, if you wanted to get into a debate about the inclusion of hylobatidae (gibbons) in “apes” then you are some good company. The current consensus is that “great apes” be restricted to true hominids; a distinction which excludes hylobatidae.
So yes, we did in fact evolve from apes. Which makes perfect sense, considering that genus homo are in fact still quite definitively apes.
But “we evolved from monkeys” is a trickier one. Where do you draw the line on “monkeys?” Simiiformes (which would be where you’d find the last common ancestor of all monkeys and apes) breaks down into platyrrhini (new world monkeys) and catarrhini. Catarrhini contains both cercopithecoidea (old world monkeys) and hominoidea (apes).
Although it is common to group all monkeys together as if they were a homogenous genetic lineage, there are in fact two very distinct groups. Catarrhini are as differentiated from platyrrhini as platyrrhini are from lemurs. Indeed: new world monkeys show a remarkable genetic differentiation, giving rise to several major families; something that neither catarrhini nor homonoidea seems to have managed.
But we are apes. There isn’t a lot of wiggle room here. We just haven’t diversified enough to be something “special, unique and different” yet. We area a separate species, but not yet a separate family, let alone superfamily!
So I’d ditch the whole “evolved from monkeys” thing altogether. “Monkeys” is meaningless. But you’ll not escape that we evolved from apes. My dad was an ape. So was yours. I’m an ape sir, and you are too.
Re: New Reg SPB project:
I'll pitch on the kickstarter for that...
A Museum for Nikola GODDAMN Tesla
I only wish I had more to give. ++Bucket list.
Re: Choose conferences or events with real techies.
Sage advice. On my junket I was lucky to meet with the actual techies. My understanding is that both VMWorld and Build are like this. I wonder which others qualify?
Here's one: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
Re: remind me what "freedom of speech" is
As a matter of fact, it is a world ideal. Defined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Signed by the overwhelming majority of nations in the world, it defines your rights as a human being, regardless of the government you live under. These are fundamental rights that are innate to being human, not rights "granted" by a government.
It is our duty as citizens the world over to uphold and defend these rights. It is through our collective defense of these rights against all who would attempt to suppress them – governments, corporations and individuals – that we as a species give these rights their meaning.
This isn’t a “Utopian Ideal.” This is the legacy – and duty – passed onto us by our forefathers. If we wish to remain free, to free others and to see our descendants enjoy freedom then we must indeed remain eternally vigilant. The rule of governments – and their laws, lawmakers and so forth – are granted by the governed. The rights outlined in the UDHR belong to every human being, no matter what any tin pot dictator – elected or not – chooses to say on the matter.
I am willing to die, if necessary, defending the above. What kind of person are you – how self important and entitled must you be – that you would not be? What must you believe that you would tell someone – anyone – that they are aught but chattle, granted rights as a whim, to be retracted just as effortlessly?
If that is what you truly espouse sir, then I think you are a terrible human being who is actively engaged in attempts to undermine one of the only great things our species has ever achieved…even if you are only doing through speech.
As a fundamental human right, however, I would still defend your right to air your opinion. No matter how contemptible I believe it to be.
Re: .reg, .vulture, .lohan
$185,000 across 6.6 million readers is ~$0.028 per reader.
So where's the kickstarter for .reg?
Re: This is not an article...
As the article says, *I* bought the beer. I am not a shill...but I am unreservedly, unashamedly a Ninite fanboy. I hate most software. I am getting to the point of hating computers in general. I distrust corporations - the larger they are, the more cynicism is triggered - and I am beginning to believe that almost everone in tech has an angle.
But I like Ninite. It is simple. It does what it says on the tin. It saves me time. If you - or the rest of the vicious interbitts waaambulance community - has some sort of problem with that...cope.
Every now and again, something is actually A Good Thing in tech.
Re: Trevor, would a new pair of
Adding a little bit of hardware to compensate for defects in the sensory apparatus can make the system more accurate. Unfortunately both the sensor design and the underlying system can only be corrected for so much.
How can you prove that what you see is correct? Your optic sensors are fallible. The transmission architecture to your processing centers is fallible. The processing apparatus that post-processes the imagery is fallible.
Worse, that processing apparatus does not even have the capacity to process the imagery in real time; it substitutes imagery from previously stored data to compensate for the extremely low resolution imagery available from the sensors anywhere excepting the very center of their scope.
Thus the image you “see” is actually a composite of what truly exists. It is a mishmash of sensor distortions, transmission errors, filter bugs, memory retrieval errors and recompositing glitches that you choose to accept as reality. There is no scientific evidence to back up the claim that “what you can see” in fact represents reality at all.
All things being equal, there’s a reasonable chance that “what you can see” is a closeish approximation of “what is.” But it is not now and never will be a completely accurate representation of reality.
So if your standard for “what is real” is “what you can see,” then you have abjectly rejected science (and the fundamental principals that it is based upon) in its entirety.
[i]You[/i] are an entirely fallible piece of equipment.
"MED-V is designed to only serve as a temporary solution for remediation. The end game should be the modernization or replacement of the application(s) in question."
The question I have is this: if I have to buy replacement software - or recode the software I have - why would or should the replacement software be locked into the Microsoft ecosystem one more time? If I must do this - because Microsoft are withdrawing support for the platform I use - then why wouldn't I simply invest my money in standards-compliant software? HTML 5, JAVA or so forth?
If it must be a native app, why not code it for Linux? That way I can deliver as an "App-V" style X11 solution to any desktop I want (using any client operating system I want) without lock-in or licensing issues.
In sort: if you force us out of the locked-down ecosystem you yourself created, who among us should be mad enough to lock ourselves in to the garden one more time?
Honestly curious how that logic works...
@Phoenix50 lots of MS fanboys here. Lots of neutrals who like many of MS's 2012 lineup. (Powershell 3, SMB 3, Hyper-V 3, SCVMM 2012, etc.)
But Metro is outright fucking garbage. So when we talk about Microsoft, we can - and do - talk about the good things. We also crap all over the descisions and corporate attitudes that crap all over us.
Turnabout is fair play.
Win9 development started last year
"We see vehicle and home automation as an important emerging market. IN order to unify the interfaces between our PC*, Entertainment* and Mobile* offerings (to which we still retain a strong commitment!) we are undertaking the most expensive Windows development project ever to completely reimagine the interface. Now you will be able to use a Mouse*, Keyboard*, Stylus*, Fingers*, Voice*, Steering Wheel, Wall Sliders, Thermostat and Television-mounted Kinect all as "first class citizens" on the latest Microsoft Windows!
To further our efforts to unify the look and feel of Windows across all devices, we will be optimising our operating system for 30-charater displays common on most household thermostats. Rest assured however, we will continue to support alternative display devices such as monitors or tablets. All data will be syncronised with the cloud using Microsoft’s new Windows BlueSkypeBee 60ghz high-capacity home-area-networking.
To smooth the transition to this new model, we have unfortunately had to deprecate all high-level programming languages. Win RT will still be supported on some device classes, however the only universally supported development platform is building your own scanning tunnelling microscope and flipping bits on our new Microsoft FAT Flash one atom at a time.
We have created a series of Microsoft Virtual Academy videos to help you embrace the power of this new development model. Users drive the need for great products, but it is developers, developers, developers who make those great products come to life.
Windows 9: what do you want to run Windows on today?
*Please note that these form factors and input types are only available with purchase o an Office 365 L5 or higher monthly subscription. (Minimum 10 users, $55 USD per user per month, subject to change. All users agree to be bound by the laws of the United States of America and the laws of the state of Washington. Service is provided on a “best effort” basis and is not guaranteed. Patents pending.”
--Redmontian PR flak transmitting via Windows 9 Temporal Interface from BUILD 2015. (Thanks to the new Microsoft Quantum Tunnelling STM; buy now on the Windows Store, only 10E72 Windows Points!)
Re: funny that
Scripting is easy. Basic OOP development is easy.
Good development...that's hard. I'd say being a real developer - the kind that worries about maintainable, modular code, knows the ins and outs of the language, understands things like polynomial versus logarithmic execution times for sorts and seraches - that takes as much time, effort, skill and experience as learning Deep Sysadmin stuff.
Of course, the devs are better paid and earn far more respect than the "digital janitors." But that's another rant...
Three Cheers for Minty (and minions)!
Thanks for keeping El Reg running. +1 syadmin awesomeness.
Re: Things move in GUI's.
I wonder, does Lotus 123 from back in the day count as a CLI spreadsheet? No mouse interface on that...
Re: "as long as they understand the fundamentals of how a computer works"
I would consider most of that "fundamentals," yes...but that's just scratching the surface.
I'd add understand file layouts. Specifically how files are organised on a hard drive; the difference between a block of data and and file system information. (Raw storage versus indexes, journals, etc.) The basics of various partition types, limits, features, etc. Why you have to "eject" removable storage on most systems (delayed write!)
Understanding how applications use tiers of memory, from L1 up to (at least) a basic understanding of ASLR in main memory. The concepts of tiered storage, deduplication (memory in re: virtualisation and block storage/file storage for the physical stuff.) DAS versus NAS versus SAN.
ON the networking side being able to say "synchronisation, synchronisation, enquire" is cute, but I want an understanding from my PFYs regarding "buffer bloat," and what the various different "experts" in the field are still arguing about. (Yes, buffer bloat is still a debated topic.) I want them to be able to explain spanning tree, network reconvergence, broadcast domains and VLANS.
They need to know about MAC addresses. Specifically that they are emphatically not globally unique, that the manufacturer is part of the beginning of the address and that virtualisation generates virtual MACs for each vNIC. They need to be aware of issues surrounding MAC address conflicts and what the symptoms are.
I want an understanding of system services, scheduled tasks, how to avoid resource starvation cascades (system-local, but especially in auto-failover virtualised environments!) This carries over from the simple system utilisation into networking of course; an understanding of everything from link saturation to overloading network gear with too many connections is pretty “fundamental.”
I would also expect a basic understanding of scripting, even if they aren’t very good at it (yet.) This would include the concept of data extraction from one application, parsing that data for another application, injecting it and analysing the result. (Chaining.)
I think knowledge of how a hypervisor works, including a basic understanding of things like VT and IOMMU are pretty fundamental. An understanding of basic electrical theory (including digital to analogue and analogue to digital signalling) is pretty important.
I’d also toss in an understanding of how graphics are output from display subsystems; why some remote applications are “screen scrapers,” while others can use “mirror drivers” and still others actually send raw data and expect the client application to construct a graphical representation locally instead of dragging imagery across.
Without the above knowledge as a bare minimum, I don’t think you can survive proper SME systems administration. You need to know the fundamentals of “computing.” Not just “that application, shell or OS.” You don’t have a team to rely on; there are no storage specialists, network specialists and so forth. As SME sysadmins, we’re it.
Oddly enough, I find the above level of information pretty common for sysadmins in their second year out of our local polytechnic. I’d say the city of Edmonton produces these folks at a rate of about 30 per year. (From a graduation size of about 90 per year.)
Oh, and yes, they are almost universally GUI-grown. They know some command line, but the young folk I encounter who know all of the above things to a reasonable degree aren’t steeped in the dark arts of Bash. They don’t run slackware on their home PC, and most of them use an iPhone.
Get one that’s willing to learn, teach them the power of the command line…and you’ve got a right proper sysadmin there.
Re: Real simple for me...
Re: Would prefer admin gui's not to exist unless complemented by equally full-featured CLI
Re: They use butterflies, stupid.
I am now determined to somehow make a butterfly into a systems administration tool.
Thoughts on how this can be done?
Re: Thanks, Trevor
@eulampios You are absolutely correct; until PowerShell, there wasn't anything grep-like. PowerShell 2.0 however...it'll take grep on.
In the Windows NT 4.0 world (which was the context of the original question,) nothing from that era of Microsoft software can match a modern grep command.
Re: Windows - Every single thing ... you can also do from the command line.
@eulampios FINDSTR might do you...http://thesystemguard.com/TheGuardBook/CCS-Ext/helptext/FindStr-NT.txt.htm
Re: Windows - Every single thing ... you can also do from the command line.
UMOUNT/MOUNT = MOUNTVOL http://ss64.com/nt/mountvol.html
FSCK = CHKDSK
CRYPTSETUP = CIPHER
MKFS = FORMAT
LVREDUCE/LVEXTEND = FSUTIL (Is this in Windows NT??)
Re: However, on FreeBSD
"Each with some shell/awk/find/etc quirk."
Some diverge more from "what you're used to" than others. The beauty of learning bash and other POSIX-like shells as "baby's first CLI" is that there are just so many that more-or-less follow the same rules. You don't have to relearn an entire CLI interface to get the job done (like moving from bash to CMD.) You mostly just have to internalise the exceptions and differences.
PowerShell is different for me here I think largely because a lot of the tools I got used to using with *nix operating systems aren't there. Chaining also works slightly differently, with the weird emphasis on OO shell structures, there are just some things that require a different headspace. (Linear scripting and I are just fine, but OO starts to wander outside my bailiwick.)
More to the point, some of the fundamental assumptions about system usage are different in Windows versus most POSIX systems. Flat-text configuration as one example. (Though I must point out that more and more I can just feed XML into PowerShell-compliant apps and that works. It’s a start.)
Where I start really getting outside my comfort zone though are programming-language CLI shells. Cshell, Rhino, etc.
That’s all a really long way of saying “I think it really matters which CLI is your first.” You never forget your first, and it deeply influences how you view and interact with CLIs forever. Using something like Bash is grand, because it’s close enough to all the other POSIX shells that you can adapt quickly.
Using a real outlier on the POSIX branch might not be as good; the mental list of “exceptions” to what you perceive as “normal” might be significantly higher than otherwise.
I can’t find much empirical research into the difficulties of learning (specifically) shells – nor the deltas imposed on cognition by different POSIX shells – but there is plenty into similar areas. GUI design – as one example – has had billions put into fundamental research on “how far from what someone first learned” you can stray before they get really uncomfortable or have a hard time. Similarly, keyboard design…even the design of musical instruments.
How much those “little differences” matter amongst similarly structured CLIs really could boil down to “which CLI you learned first!"
Just so we're clear here - and I think it's important to be - I don't have a problem with a Linux administrator who decides he wants to run his own Linux systems in a GUIless fashion. In certain circumstances (embedded, high-density-every-MB-of-RAM-matters, ultra-high security requirements) I can understand why it might be necessary or desirable.
But I do take issue with those administrators who feel it is necessary to lash out against others who choose to maintain a different set of tools on their servers. I especially have issues with those – like yourself – who can offer nothing excepting rhetoric to back up your decision.
Your arguments are consistently based on unproven assumptions about human learning patterns that simply don’t hold up to empirical testing. You even trot out appeal to authority without defining that authority in anything but the vaguest of terms. “More experience than me” is one you use…except there are plenty of Linux administrators in senior positions with decades more experience than me who agree with my take on this.
You bust out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy by implying that anyone who doesn’t agree with you isn’t a “real” systems administrator and – by virtue of disagree with you – obviously doesn’t know what they are talking about. That borders carefully on merging no true Scotsman with argument from personal incredulity.
Other sysadmins can do whatever they want. If however they want to belittle the rest of us for choosing not to limit our options, I believe it is incumbent upon them to do a damned through job of explaining their position, and backing it up with primary sources.
The whole debate has certainly devolved into ad homenim on both sides. Separate from my professional disagreements – and they certainly appear to be pretty fundamental – I believe your approach to this has been pretty damned douchey. You repeatedly assert yourself as superior in knowledge, character and professional capability without offering anything to back it up.
You attack me and my credibility based on assumptions and your own personal predjudices. I think that’s pretty damned douchy. Instead of attempting to have a rational debate about the topic you have made assertions grounded in obvious logical fallacies followed by personal and professional ad homs.
So if I obtain the impression that you, personally, may be unwell please understand that this analysis is entirely separate from the professional disagreement occurring regarding the use (or not) of GUI administration tools in various circumstances.
I am perfectly willing, capable of (and in fact, rather enjoy) having the CLI/GUI/Both debate in a dispassionate, professional setting backed by plenty of evidence, experimentation and so forth. That said, when I believe that you personally are a giant dong, don’t be surprised if I troll you.
After all, I have to do something amusing while yum runs 1064 package updates...
And I completely disagree with you on your points.
A GUI is a tool; it has a place, even on production servers. You haven't offered anything to explain why it shouldn't be there excepting your own personal bias.
Your arguments are based entirely off the base that "proper sysadmins use the CLI." The GUI thus being equivalent in your version of the universe to training wheels. Again; I disagree. Your entire perspective on the GUI vs CLI debate is pretty cracked. Listen carefully here: GUIs are perfectly fine things for administering servers, production, testbed and otherwise. So are CLIs. Better to have the option of both.
Quit limiting yourself, and for the love of His Noodly Self, quit advocating the limitation of others, just because you want to believe in the sacred power of your secret nerd club. No, the CLI is not "what a proper sysadmin uses, to the near exclusion of the GUI." I fundamentally reject that premise. I also reject the idea that you need to be tossed into the CLI deep end to learn the CLI.
More to the point, I reject your unspoken assertion that people are only "experienced administrators" when they agree with your views on how systems administration should be done. Seems to me there are quite a few very experienced administrators - myself included - who disagree with you.
So I’m back to “I want to know how your brain works.” Preferably with some DNA samples so I see if the issue is socialised or genetic.
"Engineering culture" isn't all its cracked up to be either. IF you allow the engineers to tun the asylum then they don't nessecairily think about little things, like real world implementation, transition from extant technologies, privacy, etc. They just make the most technically fantastic protocol they can, and to hell with all the people who have to deploy, administer or use the thing.
Then they go on holy jihads against anyone who dare consider anything outside of the technical purity. Because the technical purity of something is all. Assuming of course you agree with the design goals of the engineers in the first place.
See IPv6 for an example.
Me, I’d rather have had a protocol with privacy and anonymity being major considerations. Instead IPv6 is attaching a target to my forehead…and presenting every single device to the whole world.
But – aha – for criticising it, I will most assuredly get a bajillion downvotes and more hate mail claiming I “just don’t understand IPv6.” Because disagreeing with various design decisions automatically means I am irrational. Who wouldn’t want IPv6 exactly as implemented?
The take home from this is:
Netflix stock is undervalued; buy now.
Nice unicorn factory. In the real world, business demabds a solution, informs you the budgef is zero and assigns one of your staff to shipping because the shipper just left. Two months later they call you lazy and incompetent because you haven't delivered on the 9 projects you have, and your regular maintenance is falling behind. Then they reassign another staff member and fire a third.
Re: Trevor Pott
Only works if the cother side plays ball. How long do you try in a one-sided effort? I lasted 8.5 years before I gave up. Now it's "man the barricades."
Re: Teenager? More like pre-teenager.
I don't know. I think you're mixing CE and corporate IT up. My experience seems to be that most companies (including our governments!) seem to push their systems at least to the 6 year mark. At that point, entropy takes over and the hardware's rate of failure starts dictating replacement schedules.
Even with a lot of replacements happening now (that old Windows XP stuff is at the end, for most folks,) I find that a lot of companies are being pretty smart about things. They care about things like vPro. They want corporate stable models for their purchases; they might be starting replacement now, but they want to know they can still get the last round two years from now. They buy spares.
Maybe it’s a “large enterprise” thing? You’d have more experience in the 2500+ seat range than I do; down in the 25-1000 sat range, 6 year life seems to be about right. Maybe longer, as it’s at about 6 years that people say “I should replace that,” but it can take a while before that replacement actually occurs.
Phones and other CE devices however…they are on a rapid replacement schedule that I just don’t see with desktops and laptops.
So I am curious; where are you seeing this? Across which cross section of corporates? It is region or industry limited, or are you seeing it broadly?
Re: It's even simpler than that.
Not so black and white. Sometimes you just end up in such a poorly run company that yes, the rest of the company is at war with IT. IT can only drive costs down so far. Eventually, refusal to invest by management means that you reach the hard limit of what can be delivered.
In those companies, resources are usually pretty thin on the ground, and everyone jealously eyes everyone else, looking for spare coppers. No matter how servile IT acts, some workplaces are simply toxic for everyone.
While a truly toxic workplace is probably not the norm, the workplace where management and other departments are joined up, “on the same team” and understand their role in business is probably just as rare.
Most companies fall somewhere in between, and the efforts of systems administrators alone are not going to bridge to social and political gaps in management strategy.
Re: Trevor Pott
Actually I agree with this guy in almost every aspect. IT is not about computers, nor the software you choose. It's not about the configuration you use or which brand name you've tribally attached your self worth to.
Too many systems administrator forget the very reason we both investing in computers in the first place: because they can do something for us cheaper than paying a person, more accurately than paying a person, faster than paying a person or some combination of the three.
Risk management is a big element too. “It doesn’t have to be perfect every time.” This is proven by the mere fact that we still use humans to do anything. Humans are fallible; we accept a certain rate of failure by using them for a task. The same goes for computers. You have to look at the specific tasks that computer system is being engaged for and ask yourself exactly how much it is worth?
Do you buy the high availability with-added-blue-crystals version for that task, or will some old beater that needs a day’s worth of poking every year do? How sure are you of that?
It isn’t about the sysadmins, it isn’t about the tech, it isn’t about egos or glory or “new for the sake of new.” IT is about money. Specifically making more money than you invest into it. Without the business, there is no reason for IT to exist.
…most management are complete fucking morons who don’t understand the above any more than the jihadist sysadmins in love with their new shiny. They either fall into the camp of “demanding the impossible as soon as they read about it in a magazine” or “treating IT like a cost center and pinching every penny until they can’t do the job they are assigned properly.”
So while I agree with the dude in this article’s take on things – I’ve written articles and comments to this effect more than once – reality rarely allows this sort of focus to exist. Human nature simply gets in the way.
When management treats IT poorly, IT becomes defensive. The nerds become jealous of what little they have, and are loathe to expend resources to solve a problem, fearing that when they need resources to solve a larger problem they won’t be made available.
Systems administrators designing and implementing IT solutions in a fully management-integrated and business-aware fashion relies on a level of cooperation and trust between management and IT that exists only in the best run companies in the world. The chances are exceptionally high that you, and nearly every single one of my readers don’t work in such a company.
Therefore I believe it is far more relevant for to discuss coping strategies for dealing with terrible management than it is to discuss the theoreticals of systems administration in a unicorn factory.
If you work in a place where management have clue; congratulations. Cherish your job; it’s rare. The rest of the world has to deal with inadequate budgets, corporate politics, hostile management and worse.
Attitude adjustment on behalf of systems administrators can only go so far towards alleviating those issues. It must be something all parties engage in. You don’t do yourself any favours by being completely servile any more than you do by being overly aggressive and hostile.
By hey, in a forums where absolute polarisation and binary thinking is the norm, why examine shades of grey? There’s black and white to worry about!
I have no problem with folks having different opinions than me. I have lots of problems with people who take those opinions and use them for homenim attacks.
I enjoy debating things with commenters. Many commenters can and do hold a fantastic debate. Several have taught me new things. Others have pointed out mistakes, shown me when I was wrong and I am grateful for all of them. I love The Register's commenttards...most of them at least.
But I do reserve the right to take up the debate when I disagree. Most especially when I feel that the commenter in question is turning purely professional or philosophical arguments into ad homs against myself or others. (Or when the person who evidences a difference of opinion does so with multiple easily pointed out logical fallacies.)
If you are particularly objectionable in your conversation, I will call you on it. If you’re a dong, I’ll call you on that too. If you repeat ad homenims against me, personally – especially if you back them up only with logical fallacies, rhetoric and baseless assertions – I am going to treat you like the complete twatdangle that I believe you to be.
Why would I do otherwise? I see absolutely no reason to take crap from you or anyone else.
I can and do respect the experience of the commenttards on El Reg. What I don’t do is blithely accept that your experience makes you “superior” simply on your say so. I don’t accept your opinion or life experience as more valid than my own or as more valid than those of the other systems administrators I have the pleasure of working with.
If you advocate something different from what I advocate, back it up. With solid evidence (primary research is best) and no obvious logical fallacies. Certainly no appeals to completely unverifiable authority. Above all; don’t cap your debates with snide comments about how I should “stick to Windows articles” or other such tripe.
Who – exactly – are you to tell me what to do? Who – exactly – are you that your experience, opinion and philosophical beliefs are automatically superior to mine, or that other guy over there with 30 years under his belt, or these million sysadmins over here?
You are a block. The validity of your arguments will flow from the evidence you provide. Nothing more.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Updated + vids WHOA: Get a load of Asteroid DX110 JUST MISSING planet EARTH
- 10 years of Facebook Inside Facebook's engineering labs: Hardware heaven, HP hell – PICTURES
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- Massive new AIRSHIP to enter commercial service at British dirigible base