Slashdot Mirror
A Sysadmin for Sysadmins?
crazyharry asks: "I have recently been hired to be a system administrator to a bunch of system administrators. Aside from my personal experience, which is probably biased, I would like to know from the disproportionately large number of IT people here: if you, as a system administrator, were forced to have a system administrator, what would you expect of that role? How would you want your business machines (not the ones you admin, but your daily use machines) managed, if they were not up to this point? This is a mixed environment (Windows, Mac, and Linux/Unix), so feel free to assume I've already heard the 'leave me the FSCK alone' comments. What other issues are probably going to crop up, if you have been in a similar situation?"
Sysadmins are going to make your job hard (wouldn't you?). Nobody likes knowing how to fix a problem but having to go through somebody else. Why are you needed? This smells like a manager came up with the idea without understanding how sysadmins operate.
As I see it:
The *good* news is it might make existing sysadmins more symapthetic to the needs of their users if they have to experience the same sort of interactions with them that some experience with their co-workers (some of my own experiences have been negative in the past and as such are biased).
The *bad* news is that more bureaucracy means more places for people to hide, more paperwork for everyone to got through, and another layer of clearance required for people to do their jobs.
The *ugly* news is that a single feudal overlord of a sysadmin with political qualifications instead of technical ones might turn a workplace from a productive well-oiled machine to a mess rather quickly.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
You're in for a tough job. This is bound to be even worse than managing a group of programmers.
Proverbs 21:19
Don't enforce; Provide.
if you, as a system administrator, were forced to have a system administrator, what would you expect of that role
You said it... If I were forced to have a system administrator... You should maintain your distance, be amiable. You should offer all the help you can to those who are either not doing things properly (in which case you can be somewhat forceful, but be sure you know they're doing it wrong), and to those who actually ask for it. If you start bossing them around, you're not going to last long (psychologically) in your position.
Hell, depending on how many of them there are, just buy them all a beer Friday after work... That ought to make thing easier
What the hell's a "gewie?"
You're being asked to fill a position that amounts to a collective slap in the face to a whole department. How do you think this is going to turn out for you? I don't have much information to work with here, but my suspicion is that you know that this situation is a bit awkward, to say the least, and you're not sure about it. Follow your gut and take a different job.
slashdot broke my sig
Hmm, yes I agree ... sort of.
I think that there is a 3rd type.
- ones who think the business is their client.
Where ultimately although people are important, they aren't more important than the business - no precious people please.
Yes, people have to be able to do the job. But if the machines aren't working then the peope can't do the job. In a way you almost need to assume the worst of people - not nice, but by doing that you protect the business by ensure those that don't kow any better don't get 'their' machines into a state where they can no longer do their job. Machines weighed down by extra 'applications' such as viruses and trojans don't help people work.
A lot of windows (for those that use it) applications are now better able to deal with multiple people using the same machine and are more intelligent about permissions and what people need access to to get an application working - still far from perfect, but better than 5 years ago!
By ensuring the machines are stable and in a controlled, locked down environment (Control Freak Alert!) you can ensure that a business can continue. Everyone (including me) must remember that the business network is more important than any one person.
with a cupboard full of spare parts and useful bits, a headful of clue and an open office door. Talk to all the people you're adminning for, ask them what they want doing and make sure you don't overstep your agreed-upon boundaries. Make it clear to everyone that you're just there to help everyone get their job done faster and whether they want root or just a reliable box to SSH from, that's what you'll provide. Deal with pissy bureocrats on their behalf, harangue the network guys when things go wrong, just try and create as pleasant and hassle-free environment as possible.
You are suggesting he doesn't do his job? Personally, I'd lock them out of their machines and buy them all a second "Test" system that they could abuse (or better, a VMware/Xen virtual system that can be quickly restored when they screw it up), reformat at will, screw royally, etc. They can SSH / Terminal Server / X-window to THAT achine when they get the urge to "play", that way their system stays nice and stable. I think I'd also set that machine up on a isolated VPN just to be safe. Build them a sandbox. Just don't beleive because they can admin whatever systems they are responsible for they can admin their desktops. Thats HIS responsibility.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
In a multiplatform setup, I reckon it's better to acknowledge that you are not an expert in every field, and let those who now best manage their domain.
Hats off to you if you are the uber-expert, of course.
I work for a company of contract geeks. One rule to remember is that "if everyone is responsible, Nobody is responsible." I.e. Who adds and deletes accounts for admins as they join and leave the team? You must have 1 individual with that duty otherwise it may not get done or worse get redone.
Also there is the matter of accountability. If every nerd in the department has full read/write access to the Email server who do you fire (or shoot) when the mail you need for evidence disappears?
So yes. Every IT teem must have a sysadmin. Even if it's all sysadmins. For really small teems with limited internal requirements you can add other duties to that goys list until he gets up to averaging 40 hours per weak. I.e. He could maintain your library of technical documentation and software or act as secretary to the team. Imagine this exchange:
Mark -: "Joe. I feel like I'm Ready for CCIE, Book me for an exam next week"
Joe -: "cool."
Joe (Next day, via email) -: "You're on the 10:00 AM flight from Norman Manley Airport on Tuesday, You will be staying at the Marriott inn. Your exam is on Wednesday morning and you head back here on the 12 noon flight."
BTW: Andrew and myself will be handling your workload for those days. Any outstanding issues we need to know about in advance?
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?