Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Title To Replace "Systems Administrator"?

Posted by timothy on from the bofh-wasn't-good-enough dept.

sjanich writes "A discussion has begun at SAGE on an updated title to replace "Systems Administrator". I figure more sysadmins are reading Slashdot than are reading SAGEwire. Rob Kolstad of SAGE wrote: 'What in the world do we call the collective group of those people who make computers work properly? I'm not talking about users, and I'm not talking about software developers. I am thinking of: system administrators, LAN administrators, network administrators (both kinds!), security administrators, e-mail administrators, desktop support groups, database administrators, and all the other kinds of support that keep the IT function of an institution running -- what is this huge group called?' My favorite options are "Computer Infrastructure Practitioner" or "Computer Infrastructure Specialist". The original discussion can be found here at SAGEwire."

3 of 681 comments (clear)

  1. If I ever got into the IT profession... by i_need_no_nick · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'd insist on a job title of "Lord Uber-Geek". Rolls right off the tongue!

  2. It's no big deal... by revery · · Score: 0, Troll

    but Lord and Master works just fine with me...

  3. Re:Where I work.. by richard.kilgore · · Score: 0, Troll
    Not applicable to all Sys Admins I hope, but in a couple of places I've worked, the most fitting title would be Nazi!

    These are the people who figure I have to use Microsoft products on my desktop, and am not even allowed to do such security-threatening things as change my font size, create a directory, or heaven forbid, install Mozilla (because I'm so sick of dealing with IE I want to punch someone).

    So I hate my work environment, I work at about 1/2 speed, because I have to use the crappy point-and-click interface to everything, and the first good offer that comes along...see ya!

    If there are any sys admins actually listening to this, am I unlucky, or is it really the consensus of those in your profession that locking down a software developer's workstation so tight that he gets to breathe air only when you provide it is helpful in some way?

    Because my belief is that if a malicious employee wants to cause mischief on a machine where he has physical access, it's a piece of cake. But creating an efficient, user-friendly workstation is a completely different matter, and requires access.

    Not to hard to tell how frustrated I am over this, I hope.