Slashdot Mirror
Are Sysadmins Really that Bad?
tgbrittai asks: "According to Paul Boutin they are merely an obstacle to be manipulated or outmaneuvered. According to Steve Wozniak they are pimps. I've known my share of good and bad sysadmins, programmers and every other professional role out there, and I have to wonder: are sysadmins really THAT bad?"
Most times sys-admins are overworked and underpaid and have to deal with users who take advantage of their local IT person, tasking them to fix systems that they callously break. Others are truly worth the name "Bastard Operators from Hell". How would you rate your sys-admin and what things did you have to do to make things run smoothly (or not)?
Are you trying to get us in trouble?! It's a damn good thing I'm a subscriber, I managed to block slashdot in our squid cache and drop it in a dns blackhole just before this story went live.
Trolling is a art,
End of Thread.
From woz.org:
"If my son wants to be a pimp when he grows up, that's fine with me. I hope he's a good one and enjoys it and doesn't get caught. I'll support him in this. But if he wants to be a network administrator, he's out of the house and not part of my family. I tell this joke a lot. Once, a teacher told me that she tells the same one but for a 'teacher'."
....when he suggests "Treat everything he does as a favor. ". Actually, that's not a bad life strategy - when the waitress refills your coffee right away, treat it as if she didn't really have to - because, really, she didn't! She could have just ignored your empty cup, or waited a few minutes, or whatever.
Same with a sysadmin. When he adds a rewrite rule (done!) 20 seconds after you ask for it, act appreciative and say thanks, even though that's his job. Because he could have put it off until tomorrow and probably would have reasonable excuses for doing so. (Incidentally, I hosed up this rewrite rule the first time by leaving off the trailing $. Doh!)
The Army reading list
Quality of sys admin is inversely proportional to the number of rules they have to work under.
The more red tape an admin has the worse the actual results they will provide
When you take a good sys admin, tell them what you want, give them a sensible budget and ask them to delvier it you will frequently get a great system.
When management try to micro manage, heap them with rules, specify particular components because they read an artical that described it as good or the vendor took them out to lunch you will get problems - lots of them.
Right now I work in a very large bank and some days I think the admins could not find their rear end with both hands and a man page - I've never met them persoanlly so no idea what they are actually like. From otehr friends I have working in banking I know how much red tape they have to work under and I suspect half of the problems the user end sees (bear in mind I'm an ex admin myself and now developer) are caused by the red tape, not by the admin.
Virtual break glass on the root password? 2 weeks aproval before changing anything, even if its trivial? These are the kind of things that can drive an admin insane.
Last company I worked for was a start up - a great place to work for a short period, the admin their was very competant on solaris, windows and linux, had a great system implemented. It didn't start going downhill til a new CEO came in that started to micromanage him (and everyone else). Thats why I got out, same for a few others, the sys admin is leaving when he can find something else he wants to do. Still even with all the hassel he had I still got great results from him, mainly because I respected his limitations, didn't break things, knew what I was doing and helped him out when he needed it. Sales staff on the other hand? With them if it wasn't explicitly on his supported list he;d tell them to take a running jump - because of all the hassel they caused breaking things (the same way repeatedly), ignoring instructions, using unsupported devices or software and then wanting it fixed - and they wondered why he didn't want to help them?
Sys admins are human like the rest of us - overly managed they are stiffled, pissed off they are unhelpful - what else would you expect?
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
And he is the best Boss ever. He even reads /., which should demonstrate how cool he is. He certainly wouldn't do anything bad, like access my computer, log on to Slashdot, post an article telling the world how awesome he is, and then give me a warning to secure my computer (and change my /. password).
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Its not that there bad people. Most of them are pretty nice if you talk to them over lunch. The problem is they are so constrained by what they can do that they are very frustrating to work with. I must say they also hate working with me for the most part.
The problem is that I'm somewhat tech savy. The sys admin don't like anybody trying new things. Their management likes it even less. Do one little thing or install one little app and if you have problems your on your own. Doesn't matter if your laptop explodes, they'll blame it on VMWARE or whatever you happen to be running.
It wasn't always like this. In days of old the Sys Admin were local and reported into the same groups they supported. As such they knew what we were working on and would help out. Management would support this because it often lead to increased productivity or reliability. But at some point a bean counter decided we needed a corporate IT organization.
Once you decouple the support from the groups they support you end up with apathy and endless rules. Also to get the groups to try anything new you have to weave your way through a bureaucracy. You also end up with smaller and smaller IT groups because their contributions to the end product become harder and harder to trace. If a business unit needs to cut costs the first thing they look at is horizontal organizations outside their own structure. Its a lot easier to cut an outside IT guy than a developer working on a product.
Things look to be taking a turn for the worse. Some of our IT is now going to be out sourced. To me this is equivalent to saying I now fully support myself. I can just imagine trying to convince some contracted person in India that I really do need to have VMPlayer installed on my Windows laptop....
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
I dont disagree with your statement here, necessarily, but it does sound to me like an issue of pointing out a problem, without really offering any notions for improvement. You say that new sysadmins are too "inexperienced" and dont necessarily know enough about Legacy systems. Well... how would they? I mean, if you've worked on any mainframe systems, you'll know that knowing one set of commands doesnt do you ANY good on the very next mainframe you might be forced to work on. And how exactly does one become an "experienced" sysadmin? Go to sysadmin school? Really? Sign me up!
It seems to me that things are the way they are because... well, they have to be. When an old sysadmin leaves, you're not going to be able to replace him with someone who knows everything about your current infrastructure, and happens to have niche knowledge of all of your various legacy machines. If such a person exist, chances are very high that they're currently still employed somewhere else, or are about to retire. Employees dont stay in circulation forever. Eventually mass amounts of experience starts falling out of the market, and has to be replaced with "noobs".
Im not saying huge companies should necessarily be hiring inexperienced sysadmins. But someone has to, or inexperienced sysadmins can NEVER become experienced sysadmins. Im fortunate, in that I was hired on as a sysadmin at a University, during a complete infrastructure rebuild. So while Ive been forced to learn a passing familiarity with the mainframe systems, it's mostly been to help usher them out entirely. And Ive been, for the most part, at liberty to build the new infrastructure around her to my own personal standards and benefits, meaning Ive got a pretty good grip on things. Gradually, I run into problems that I cant solve with a simple script, so Ive been forced to learn things like sed and awk, as you mentioned, more and more over time. And even those, btw, arent a universal solution, especially if old IBM-era mainframes are involved.
Even if what you're saying is the problem, if sysadmins with "not enough" experience for a particular job are being thrown into them... there's no real solution for that. I mean, if you draw up a requirement for all of the systems you want a sysadmin to know, chances are NOT good that you're going to find someone who A. Meets all the requirements, including experience with all of your legacy systems at your company B. Lives nearby or is willing to relocate to where you are and C. Is looking for a salary exactly where you're offering it.
Pay no attention to the systems administrator part of my job title...it's just a standard honorific. >_>
Before I launch into this, it really seems like they define good and bad by their customer service skills, so that's what I'm addressing by "good" and "bad", not so much their technical knowledge.
In my experience, the problems with sysadmins tends to be that with the ones that lack the ability to understand the user. This is what people refer to as the "IT mindset" where the user is the enemy and is doing whatever they can to make IT's life more difficult. In some cases, this is very true. There ARE abusive users out there. However, most people simply want to do their job, and their job is NOT getting these machines to work right. Getting back to the "understanding the user" thing, I find a great many sysadmins have no empathy for how a user feels when their machine has gone down, and why would they? When has a sysadmin ever really felt the panic and/or frustration of having a machine crash and not having the first clue of how to fix it? We KNOW what we should do, and while we'll be annoyed at the extra work, we're (hopefully) never flailing around blindly...or if we are we're careful never to show signs of it. A user's machine goes down and they have no idea what to do. They panic, they worry, they don't think logically...they immediately run to the nearest person who they think can help them and oftentimes get the look of "Why should I?" or "Can't you see I'm busy right now?"
Again, that doesn't mean there aren't people who don't actively try to bypass what they SHOULD be doing to get the problem they caused looked at immediately because they think they're more important. However, I think the sysadmins that most people complain about are the ones who let the handful of lazy/abusive users jade their dealings with the ones who simply want to do their job and go home.
However, I find that the "bad" sysadmins are about as common as the truly abusive users. They stand out in your memory so it seems like there's a lot of them, but they're actually far from the rule. YMMV, of course. After all, in the course of a day three or four people might stop to hold open a door for you, but the one you remember at the end of the day is the idiot that cut you off on the highway. Human memory is a funny thing...
We're watching you and we also happen to know that a 3 phase 415V busbar runs dreadfully close to the RJ11 cable which terminates at your office desk telephone. I also recall this cable being reported as damaged (stripped bare by *accidental* friction). However the repair job is in our very long backlog queue at the moment, just after "Halon release trigger malfunctioning in Lockejaw's office".
Please call us if you have any further queries on what we do down here in the basement.
Very true.
I'm a sysadmin in a DoD Classified network on a USAF Base ( LOTS of red tape) and the first rule is security (which it should be). That pretty much means lock everything down. Some examples include: lock the USB ports, prevent writes to CD-RW Drives, prevent writes to DVD-RW Drives, audit everyhthing (PL2), prevent printer installs, software installs/removal, lock down screen savers (executable code), password changes every 62 days, approved software installs only which usually means we are lagged on releasees, etc, etc, etc. Some of these are silly, yes, but I don't make the rules. The "red tape" is mandated to us by the Air Force.
All this red tape creates a very unfriendly user environment where the users frequently are annoyed with the admins because they can't do something as simple as copy data from a classified PC to a classified laptop for a presentation. They have to track down an admin to do the copy for them. Paperwork must be filled out and whitnesses present. They may not have access to files due to security permissions. Won't delve into the requirements here but it has to do with employees from different companies all working the same program who potentially have access to each company's proprietary information. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is red tape creates a very unfriendly user environment where the users frequently claim the sysadmins "don't know what they are doing", which isn't the case at all. The users are deliberatly not allowed to do what they are trying to do. However a majority of the user community thinks us admins make the system painful to use on purpose. Not the case. and they frequently take out their frustrations on us.
Once upon a time, in a land far-far away, I ran the IT department of a medium sized company. We weren't so big that I was the CIO, but I did repot directly to our corporate president (who reported to noone else, since he owned the company). A few hundred seats total, offices in 14 states, most of which were home offices, that sort of thing. I had a staff of eight, including four first-line phone technicians, and on the whole the entire operation ran quite smoothly.
The only times I had major problems, or heard of major complains, about a system administrator was when they started making one major flaw in their perception: that IT was there to do things in a way that was best for IT.
When a system administrator begins to believe that their entire function is self-serving, that they are there to support their own operations, that's when I've seen things go bad. Regardless if you are an IT consultancy firm, or an internal IT department, the sole purpose of IT is to play a supportive role in the organization. It's important to recognize that if IT didn't show up for a week, things would probably be okay (backup tapes would *really* need to be changed), but if the sales and customer service departments didn't show up for a week, we'd be damn near out of business.
I always tell people to think about their product. What is it you produce? System administrators, software engineers, they produce things that let *other* people get their work done *more* efficiently. If it's difficult for the sysadmin or developer to do, who cares? They aren't there to make life easier for themselves, or to devise some system that's perfect on the whiteboard but impractical in the real world - they are there to bring practical, cost-effective efficiencies to their end users.
Now, if you have a guy going around unplugging peoples network cables at the switch because they pissed him, fire that guy and hire a professional.
My $0.02.