Slashdot Mirror
Guerrilla IT, Embracing the Superuser?
snydeq writes "First it's letting users manage their own PCs and now it's sanctioning the shadow IT projects they do on the down low: 'You probably know them. They're the ones who installed their own Wi-Fi network in the break room and distribute homemade number-crunching apps to their coworkers on e-mail. They're hacking their iPhones right now to work with your company's mail servers. In short, they're walking, talking IT governance nightmares. But they could be your biggest assets, if you use them wisely. The reason superusers go rogue is usually frustration, says Marquis. "It's a symptom of the IT organization being unable to meet or even understand the needs of its customers," he says. "Otherwise, it wouldn't be happening." The solution? Put them to work.'"
Great...now I get to do IT's job for them. In addition to my own work. So, I'll get paid for all the extra time I put in working on an IT project, right? Remind me why we even have an IT dept. again?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
In which case they should toe the god damn line, because they're fucking shit up for other people.
Yes, enterprise IT can be frustrating. But your cheeky little wifi hack maybe just took down three buildings of network, resulting in thousands of dollars of lost productivity. Actually happened, in my org - 100% true story.
I don't like meaningless limitations any more than the next guy, but these know alls who think they're 'superusers' because they can set up a wifi network need to lay off - they don't have the big picture, they just think they're being clever. Guerilla? Arse-scratching chimp, more like.
I don't think that's true. Lots of people just want to screw around with things and get an ego boost out of flouting authority or trying to show-up the IT staff. You know, there's always going to be that guy who wants to install games on his PC, and figure out how to tunnel past the porn filter. Maybe it's because he wants those things, but also it's because he gets a kick out subverting the rules. Either way, it doesn't mean the IT staff isn't doing their jobs.
hahaha, let the users have admin rights?
does the author have **any** experience of the commercial environment?
Including electric power, of course.
Ezekiel 23:20
If you look back in history, people originally used computers together, sharing access, tips, and source code. Now it's all top down - someone dictates what you'll do and how you do it. You, as the unempowered user, receive prebuilt restrictions, prebuilt computers, prebuilt binaries. You can't tinker, you can't fix, and you aren't even supposed to poke around.
The problems of restriction in DRM, restriction in EULA, restriction by not providing source code, restriction in IT are all the same. Instead of educating users and providing them the ability to solve problems, IT mirrors large software companies and media companies, and removes any control, forcing them to be "stupid." When users can't even diagnose on their own, and are forced to run to IT for the most minor software install, the bureaucracy justifies itself. IT is necessary because it's been made necessary. Dumb down the users and they need someone to hold their hand. But create a community of educated and empowered individuals and people will share information.
In a community of empowered users people don't just share solutions, they create solutions.
My last employer had firewalls that only allowed traffic through ports 80, 443, and an unusual port for VPN. I heard they also sniffed unencrypted packets, mostly to watch for viruses and breakins. Some of my coworkers wanted to use IM, although it was banned on the network. So I set up an encrypted squid proxy through my work desktop and home server. My whole team had IM and was able to communicate more efficiently.
One day I got called into the boss's office. He says, "I hear you've installed IM on everyone's desktop." So immediately I think I'm in trouble. Then he says, "Would you mind setting it up for me? How did you get it on the network?" He realized it increased productivity and any personal use wasn't seriously inhibiting work.
The point is don't hinder technology for a whole company only because you're afraid one ignorant user will bring in a virus. If power users want something, it's typically because it'll make them better at their job. Figure out a way to let them have it.
Developers: We can use your help.
It really depends on the organization. There may be some overriding legal or safety reasons why you don't want to let anyone out of the sandbox: end user apps may not place nice with air traffic control or nuclear plants. ;)
On the other hand, some IT departments fully live up to the Dilbert character, Mordac, Preventer of Information Services. My IT department happens to be one of those, and the main consequence of my supervisor's blanket refusal to do anything that bothers him is that everyone, including his boss, comes to me to get things done. And that's okay with my boss, because his real objection is to doing anything unfamiliar, not the fact that it's being done somewhere.
But that's obviously a dysfunctional situation. The problem is that our IT department -- and presumably many others, including some of the snitty, arrogant posters in this thread -- isn't doing its job. By definition, if the IT department is either preventing necessary work from being done, failing to help get it done, or imposing arbitrary obstacles to get out of doing work in the first place, the solution is not necessarily giving end users IT responsibilities; the solution is for upper management to kick ass and, if necessary, hire IT people willing to do their jobs.
Contrary to some of the polarized views I've seen here, IT isn't always the problem, nor are end-users always the problem. Most often, it's a failure of both to work constructively and flexibly together and a failure of upper management to insist that they do.
Of course, if the dysfunctionality in your company isn't going anywhere anytime soon, you may have to look for workarounds, and the solution proposed by the original poster might work in some situations.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I will knit an array of sweaters and overcome your fascism with static electricity!
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
You're being a jackass, but I'll respond anyway.
If you build a system with tons of unsupported software, I am not responsible for reinstalling and reconfiguring all that software. Period. And that is absolutely a position that is supported by my boss and my bosses boss, and the only guy higher than that only talks to shareholders.
I'll restore an image. I'll recover files, though frankly they should already be on the network share. I'll give you a fresh install. That's it.
Why, you ask, would any corporate IT support such a radical position? Because that guy's time isn't worth more than mine.
We've all got jobs to do and if I have to spend a week fixing a screwed install (and it'd have to be me or one of the other senior guys because the regular techs aren't equipped to do it), then a weeks worth of my work won't be getting done. That's more unacceptable to everyone involved than making one guy reinstall his own unsupported apps.
If you're going to give them any extra permissions, they have responsibilities there. If they can't be trusted not to make a complete mess of it, then they should never be granted those permissions in the first place.
The whole goal should be to make things more efficient and get more work done. If those things aren't happening, you're doing it wrong.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.