While the sentiment of the movement behind this article makes much sense, I just don't think it is practical in a free market system.
Free markets are all about competition. The pressure to remain competitive by getting more for less in all aspects of business squeezes everyone...management, employees, and the entire supply chain...to capture and sustain market share. If legislative measures attempt to "take back employees' time", businesses will have no other recourse but to continue the pursuit of a competitive edge through other means.
In a business world where unemployment has risen to moderately uncomfortable levels (especially in the tech sector), the economy is recovering only through measures that do not create additional jobs, and trends toward international outsourcing of business functions are increasing...drawing a line in the sand will only result in businesses being forced to look beyond the US workforce to carry on. As long as there is a pool of workers who will do *anything* just to have a job (and those people will always exist), things cannot, and will not change.
Let's face it, the modern era workforce is depreciable capital in the same way buildings and machinery were in the industrial age. You buy it, beat it, break it, all with the firm understanding that someday you must replace it.
I think this is what is meant by the phrase, "victims of their own success".
I love free markets and the innovation brought about by competition, but to get the good, you must willingly accept the bad. It's a trade off.
As much as the penguin-lover in me would love to jump on the "Microsoft Did It" bandwagon, I think this deal has less to do with improving SCO's situation, and more to do with positioning to capitalize on the carnage as this mess continues to unfold. Afterall, PIPE deals are typically hedge fund investments...so we clearly cannot see the entire picture, but Microsoft's investment just doesn't make sense as a hedge. Whose would?
I'm actually happy to see someone other than SCO's board and management stands to profit from their hyper-inflated stock price. If I only had $50 million, and had thought of it first.
I love a good religious war as much as the next guy, but I'm forced to be pragmatic when it comes to choices on systems and hardware.
In my current enviroment, we have a very healthy mixture of PCs and Macs. Like most have stated already, OS X has "fixed" many OS related issues found in earlier MacOS versions, but has created several others specific to application interoperability. Paramount among them, no *good* Exchange Client...and having to contend with an infrastructure committment to Exchange due to budgetary issues for at least the next year...maybe two has made this a serious sore point. I know, I know...Entourage. Have you used it over a WAN link via a VPN connection? I have...not a solution...a much bigger problem. I would be hard-pressed to recall a crappier program in my sixteen years of IT/IS experience.
The other issue that seems to have escaped many that shout to replace the MS enterprise entirely with Macs is that of switching costs. Leave alone the reality that the total cost of a Mac system with all required software to replace an MS system is more expensive than an upgrade to a newer MS system (in anything but an academic environment), the fact that most computer hardware purchases are capitalized makes it fiscally obsurd to replace hardware if it hasn't fully depreciated. I'd love to see someone successfully make the argument to a competent CFO that a hardware write-off was the way to go because..."Macs Rule".
In my opinion, those that claim Macs are easier to support than PCs in a mixed environment either:
a. Have a collection of tech-saavy, self-supporting *end-users* that fully understand (and remember) the hows, whats, and whys of interop,
or
b. Have never heard of, or successfully implemented any process automation in the Win32 environment. Perl + PSTools = Complete Enterprise Patching in less than an hour.
Now, before anyone accuses me of bening anti-Mac, or an MS-lover, let me make clear that I personally own two Mac PBs, and have a Blue/White G3 in my office. I also have a deep hatred for MS. That having been said, I know when to take my lemons and make lemonade. There are far more *competent* MS admins out there than there are people with the necessary *NIX experience to manage enterprise OS X available in the current job market (that haven't embedded their skill set in other, more mainstream *NIXes). People that think popping a disk in a system and re-installing the OS is the depth of sysadmin tasks required in managing Macs will have fun (sarcasm found here) over the long-term.
I personally don't care what system is being used, so long as a person's job can get done, but I'm currently the only one in my enterprise that will work in the BSD guts of OS X to secure it and automate enterprise tasks. It should probably also be noted that I run Gentoo Linux as my primary OS on both Mac and PC hardware platforms. Interop problems? What interop problems?
Hail to the All-Powerful Ubiquitous Penguin! Rock on, brothers and sisters. Rock on.
Flames will be automatically re-routed to/dev/null.
Although I follow your logic, I have to disagree slightly with its application here.
A true capitalist economy is a "free market", no? Consumers and producers driven by supply and demand. Buyer beware...meaning it is the consumer's responsibility, not a third party's, to understand the scope, limits, and risks of any product purchased from a producer.
If he had been hired by an existing customer, or was one himself, your "capitalist information" logic would follow. As this was represented, it appeared (and I use this word intentionally) that his primary interests were his own.
I agree he had First Amendment rights to disclose the existence of a problem, which may have been crushed. I disagree with the level of information disclosed to those unable to directly resolve the issue. IMHO, he acted irresponsibly.
Someone somewhere else in this thread shared the exagerated analogy of figuring out how to steal someone's car, and going to jail. Telling someone that an easy way to steal the car exists should not be a crime. Giving detailed instruction on a means to steal a car (or demonstrating to a captive audience) would be a crime (at least where I was raised). The difference is small, but there is still a difference.
All of this is purely academic. I do believe an injustice was committed in this case, but I also believe very strongly that security professionals have to be held to a higher standard in order to maintain credibility with "big business" and government. There has to be a better balance than demonstrated in this case.
I think there is a line in the sand to be drawn here. If you are a customer complaining about an insecurity you have found specific to your own accounts (whether or not it is due to a universal insecurity), and complain to the providor of that service, this is very different than proclaiming to the world that it is a universal problem that must be fixed. The former is your right as a paying customer to make sure you are getting that for which you are paying. The latter does nothing but stir up problems that have consequences well beyond the scope of your own interests as a customer. An outsider, no matter how well informed, has no rights in this situation...right or wrong...because an outsider should have no direct vested interest in the problem or the solution unless ill will is involved.
I think the guy who blew the whistle in this case could have avoided the problems he enountered if he was a customer. He definitely could have requested government help under consumer protection to force the fix of something he identified with *his own* account. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't currently play one on TV!
What the world needs is more well informed consumers of technology! Think of all the better O-level decisions that could be made.
Although I do not entirely disagree with your impression of the majority of the/. comments in response to Mr. Reed's answers, I would be careful painting with too wide a brush on who *exactly*/. readers are, what they do for a living, and what that is truly worth to you, your organization, and the economy in general.
Despite your comments falling well within the parameters of your own criticisms, I'm not sure how much of a point you've made...except perhaps to exemplify Mr. Reeds' point that people tend to lash out hardest at that which they do not fully understand.
--
"So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world". - Immanuel Kant
There has been a lot of insight into the legal issues and the proper level of outrage to be displayed over this issue. I have truly appreciated reading everyone's comments so far.
Had to laugh over this a bit though, as it reminds me of college. Anyone else play "You're stupid. Give me $20!" with incoming freshmen? Anyone make any good money?:)
Also, I read someone's post regarding guesses on who may be secretly buying up SCO stock...to that person: Think darker. Think anti-trust, and slap-on-the-hand. Just my initial thoughts on that idea. Who knows?!
Looks like another in-meeting engineering joke was taken seriously by the sales and marketing folks. I'm sure there's a pack of engineers somewhere laughing their butts off.
Quite frankly, I'm ashamed of you Slashdoters that are encouraging the spread of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) as means to accomplish an end in an systems/network management task. I think that this is partly why most Users think people in our profession are unapproachable, disrespectful, or generally useless when it comes to a "meeting-of-the-minds" on technology issues. It's no wonder our jobs are difficult, if we are consistently sabotaging ourselves within the User Community in this fashion. It may be the easy way, but it is not the right way!
Now, I'll step off my soap box for a minute and address the issue raised. I think that looking at the issues presented from a School District/School/Administrator liability and accountability perspective may open a few eyes. Someone suggested getting legal council involved. As painful as this might be, it may be worth talking to your superior and requesting some clarification. "Say, Boss, if the RIAA Storm Troopers broke down the school gate 'cause someone was illegally downloading the new Britney Spears album, who would be held accountable? Who would lose their job(s) over it"? If they don't know, or don't give a good answer, request in writing that they pursue the issue with legal council. Also ask, "Do the network and systems work in a manner that you see as acceptable? I think that the learning experience could be elevated through technology, even on our restrictive budget, if...". Raise your concerns "for the good of the community", and as someone else mentioned already, have solutions written out or diagramed in-hand as you present the problem.
You may not get the satisfaction that comes from shutting down the ports without notice, and then watching the chaos that ensues, but you will be more likely to be seen as a competent professional that has the good of the whole in mind. And this, my friend, will spread, changing the opinion some have about our profession in general.
Unfortunately, your comment on the commonality of "missed-management" is not limited to your experiences. This phenomenon is sadly common.
I used to know a retired Army Airborne Lt. Col. The words he used to describe both the problem and the solution were, "Managers manage things. Leaders lead people".
This inspired me, a Sr. Network Admin, to pursue my MBA just so I could speak the language of business. Luckily I was able to skip the class where they performed the labotomies, so I think I managed to hold on to my grip on reality (relatively speaking, of course).
In short (too late), my degree has given me some credibility to implement change. The old saying, "Wherever you go, there you are", doesn't exactly apply...you aren't the problem. You will, unfortunately, find the problem wherever you go...unless you take strides to make change where you can and learn to live with the areas where you can't.
Probably not very helpful, huh? Is it at least practical?
In answer to your original question: Yes, I love my job...but only since I started speaking my mind, nicely, of course (and in my MBA voice), and helping decision makers identify the bobbles.
I am exactly two months away from receiving my MBA in Strategic Leadership from Dominican University of California, an executive MBA program modeled loosely after the executive MBA program at UC Berkeley.
When I first entered the program I was most interested in earning more money and a management level position (all that remains is the lobotomy...). After being buried in course work for a term or two, I came to find that good business sense can be put to use (and more importantly, is appreciated) regardless of position.
I am a Senior Network Administrator at a start-up telecommunications software company. The knowledge that I have gained in my MBA program about capital budgeting, communication, project management, the differences between leaders and managers (managers manage things, leaders lead people), the need for clear business strategy, and the necessity of strategic fit in technology / software development infrastructure planning and implementation have made me a more valuable employee in my current job. The education I have recieved has allowed me to see more clearly why my job exists and has given me insight into how I might do it better with my company's goals in mind.
I may get more money out of the deal. I may even become a manager or director at some point. But I am here to tell you that there is value beyond the superficial, and it may even help you find a way to become more content with the role you are currently playing in your organization.
Excellent to see that someone else went out to get informed before getting angry.
It seems to me that they are providing a decent service in "good faith" with respect to authors' rights. It's very difficult to criticize the content of a site that has their policies regarding copyrights pop-up as the first block of information. No small print there.
Anyone that has spent countless hours looking for existing research on abstract topics should applaud the efforts of sites like Contentville.com. Commercial or not, I'd like to see more sites like this. It be better if it were free, but if information was truly free, most of us that take part in this site would be seriously underemployed...
The problem isn't with the methodologies, their implementation, or even with the consultants or managment teams that propose them, although these are all easy targets. The issue in most organizations, as they relate to IT support, development, etc., is a general failure to recognize what it is the company is intending to do (read Mission), and then matching policy and process implementation to this overall goal.
I've read in responses to this question that, "there are no silver bullets", "methodologies suck", and, "in organizations without methodologies, everyone goes about doing their own thing" (with some paraphrasing).
No organization, development, IT, or otherwise, can operate in an efficient manner indefinitely without some means of process management. The wrong methodologies certainly do suck...for those forced to implement them as well as those expecting productive results from their implementation. The only "silver bullets" I've ever seen or heard about in any organization are those that have been carefully contrived with the overall business strategy, and more importantly, the business culture, in mind.
Consultants aren't evil, they're just misused that way...
Slashdot Mirror
While the sentiment of the movement behind this article makes much sense, I just don't think it is practical in a free market system.
Free markets are all about competition. The pressure to remain competitive by getting more for less in all aspects of business squeezes everyone...management, employees, and the entire supply chain...to capture and sustain market share. If legislative measures attempt to "take back employees' time", businesses will have no other recourse but to continue the pursuit of a competitive edge through other means.
In a business world where unemployment has risen to moderately uncomfortable levels (especially in the tech sector), the economy is recovering only through measures that do not create additional jobs, and trends toward international outsourcing of business functions are increasing...drawing a line in the sand will only result in businesses being forced to look beyond the US workforce to carry on. As long as there is a pool of workers who will do *anything* just to have a job (and those people will always exist), things cannot, and will not change.
Let's face it, the modern era workforce is depreciable capital in the same way buildings and machinery were in the industrial age. You buy it, beat it, break it, all with the firm understanding that someday you must replace it.
I think this is what is meant by the phrase, "victims of their own success".
I love free markets and the innovation brought about by competition, but to get the good, you must willingly accept the bad. It's a trade off.
As much as the penguin-lover in me would love to jump on the "Microsoft Did It" bandwagon, I think this deal has less to do with improving SCO's situation, and more to do with positioning to capitalize on the carnage as this mess continues to unfold. Afterall, PIPE deals are typically hedge fund investments...so we clearly cannot see the entire picture, but Microsoft's investment just doesn't make sense as a hedge. Whose would?
I'm actually happy to see someone other than SCO's board and management stands to profit from their hyper-inflated stock price. If I only had $50 million, and had thought of it first.
I love a good religious war as much as the next guy, but I'm forced to be pragmatic when it comes to choices on systems and hardware.
/dev/null.
In my current enviroment, we have a very healthy mixture of PCs and Macs. Like most have stated already, OS X has "fixed" many OS related issues found in earlier MacOS versions, but has created several others specific to application interoperability. Paramount among them, no *good* Exchange Client...and having to contend with an infrastructure committment to Exchange due to budgetary issues for at least the next year...maybe two has made this a serious sore point. I know, I know...Entourage. Have you used it over a WAN link via a VPN connection? I have...not a solution...a much bigger problem. I would be hard-pressed to recall a crappier program in my sixteen years of IT/IS experience.
The other issue that seems to have escaped many that shout to replace the MS enterprise entirely with Macs is that of switching costs. Leave alone the reality that the total cost of a Mac system with all required software to replace an MS system is more expensive than an upgrade to a newer MS system (in anything but an academic environment), the fact that most computer hardware purchases are capitalized makes it fiscally obsurd to replace hardware if it hasn't fully depreciated. I'd love to see someone successfully make the argument to a competent CFO that a hardware write-off was the way to go because..."Macs Rule".
In my opinion, those that claim Macs are easier to support than PCs in a mixed environment either:
a. Have a collection of tech-saavy, self-supporting *end-users* that fully understand (and remember) the hows, whats, and whys of interop,
or
b. Have never heard of, or successfully implemented any process automation in the Win32 environment. Perl + PSTools = Complete Enterprise Patching in less than an hour.
Now, before anyone accuses me of bening anti-Mac, or an MS-lover, let me make clear that I personally own two Mac PBs, and have a Blue/White G3 in my office. I also have a deep hatred for MS. That having been said, I know when to take my lemons and make lemonade. There are far more *competent* MS admins out there than there are people with the necessary *NIX experience to manage enterprise OS X available in the current job market (that haven't embedded their skill set in other, more mainstream *NIXes). People that think popping a disk in a system and re-installing the OS is the depth of sysadmin tasks required in managing Macs will have fun (sarcasm found here) over the long-term.
I personally don't care what system is being used, so long as a person's job can get done, but I'm currently the only one in my enterprise that will work in the BSD guts of OS X to secure it and automate enterprise tasks. It should probably also be noted that I run Gentoo Linux as my primary OS on both Mac and PC hardware platforms. Interop problems? What interop problems?
Hail to the All-Powerful Ubiquitous Penguin! Rock on, brothers and sisters. Rock on.
Flames will be automatically re-routed to
Although I follow your logic, I have to disagree slightly with its application here.
A true capitalist economy is a "free market", no? Consumers and producers driven by supply and demand. Buyer beware...meaning it is the consumer's responsibility, not a third party's, to understand the scope, limits, and risks of any product purchased from a producer.
If he had been hired by an existing customer, or was one himself, your "capitalist information" logic would follow. As this was represented, it appeared (and I use this word intentionally) that his primary interests were his own.
I agree he had First Amendment rights to disclose the existence of a problem, which may have been crushed. I disagree with the level of information disclosed to those unable to directly resolve the issue. IMHO, he acted irresponsibly.
Someone somewhere else in this thread shared the exagerated analogy of figuring out how to steal someone's car, and going to jail. Telling someone that an easy way to steal the car exists should not be a crime. Giving detailed instruction on a means to steal a car (or demonstrating to a captive audience) would be a crime (at least where I was raised). The difference is small, but there is still a difference.
All of this is purely academic. I do believe an injustice was committed in this case, but I also believe very strongly that security professionals have to be held to a higher standard in order to maintain credibility with "big business" and government. There has to be a better balance than demonstrated in this case.
I think there is a line in the sand to be drawn here. If you are a customer complaining about an insecurity you have found specific to your own accounts (whether or not it is due to a universal insecurity), and complain to the providor of that service, this is very different than proclaiming to the world that it is a universal problem that must be fixed. The former is your right as a paying customer to make sure you are getting that for which you are paying. The latter does nothing but stir up problems that have consequences well beyond the scope of your own interests as a customer. An outsider, no matter how well informed, has no rights in this situation...right or wrong...because an outsider should have no direct vested interest in the problem or the solution unless ill will is involved.
I think the guy who blew the whistle in this case could have avoided the problems he enountered if he was a customer. He definitely could have requested government help under consumer protection to force the fix of something he identified with *his own* account. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't currently play one on TV!
What the world needs is more well informed consumers of technology! Think of all the better O-level decisions that could be made.
Although I do not entirely disagree with your impression of the majority of the /. comments in response to Mr. Reed's answers, I would be careful painting with too wide a brush on who *exactly* /. readers are, what they do for a living, and what that is truly worth to you, your organization, and the economy in general.
Despite your comments falling well within the parameters of your own criticisms, I'm not sure how much of a point you've made...except perhaps to exemplify Mr. Reeds' point that people tend to lash out hardest at that which they do not fully understand.
--
"So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world". - Immanuel Kant
--
There has been a lot of insight into the legal issues and the proper level of outrage to be displayed over this issue. I have truly appreciated reading everyone's comments so far.
:)
Had to laugh over this a bit though, as it reminds me of college. Anyone else play "You're stupid. Give me $20!" with incoming freshmen? Anyone make any good money?
Also, I read someone's post regarding guesses on who may be secretly buying up SCO stock...to that person: Think darker. Think anti-trust, and slap-on-the-hand. Just my initial thoughts on that idea. Who knows?!
Looks like another in-meeting engineering joke was taken seriously by the sales and marketing folks. I'm sure there's a pack of engineers somewhere laughing their butts off.
Quite frankly, I'm ashamed of you Slashdoters that are encouraging the spread of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) as means to accomplish an end in an systems/network management task. I think that this is partly why most Users think people in our profession are unapproachable, disrespectful, or generally useless when it comes to a "meeting-of-the-minds" on technology issues. It's no wonder our jobs are difficult, if we are consistently sabotaging ourselves within the User Community in this fashion. It may be the easy way, but it is not the right way!
Now, I'll step off my soap box for a minute and address the issue raised. I think that looking at the issues presented from a School District/School/Administrator liability and accountability perspective may open a few eyes. Someone suggested getting legal council involved. As painful as this might be, it may be worth talking to your superior and requesting some clarification. "Say, Boss, if the RIAA Storm Troopers broke down the school gate 'cause someone was illegally downloading the new Britney Spears album, who would be held accountable? Who would lose their job(s) over it"? If they don't know, or don't give a good answer, request in writing that they pursue the issue with legal council. Also ask, "Do the network and systems work in a manner that you see as acceptable? I think that the learning experience could be elevated through technology, even on our restrictive budget, if...". Raise your concerns "for the good of the community", and as someone else mentioned already, have solutions written out or diagramed in-hand as you present the problem.
You may not get the satisfaction that comes from shutting down the ports without notice, and then watching the chaos that ensues, but you will be more likely to be seen as a competent professional that has the good of the whole in mind. And this, my friend, will spread, changing the opinion some have about our profession in general.
Unfortunately, your comment on the commonality of "missed-management" is not limited to your experiences. This phenomenon is sadly common.
I used to know a retired Army Airborne Lt. Col. The words he used to describe both the problem and the solution were, "Managers manage things. Leaders lead people".
This inspired me, a Sr. Network Admin, to pursue my MBA just so I could speak the language of business. Luckily I was able to skip the class where they performed the labotomies, so I think I managed to hold on to my grip on reality (relatively speaking, of course).
In short (too late), my degree has given me some credibility to implement change. The old saying, "Wherever you go, there you are", doesn't exactly apply...you aren't the problem. You will, unfortunately, find the problem wherever you go...unless you take strides to make change where you can and learn to live with the areas where you can't.
Probably not very helpful, huh? Is it at least practical?
In answer to your original question: Yes, I love my job...but only since I started speaking my mind, nicely, of course (and in my MBA voice), and helping decision makers identify the bobbles.
Regards...
I am exactly two months away from receiving my MBA in Strategic Leadership from Dominican University of California, an executive MBA program modeled loosely after the executive MBA program at UC Berkeley.
When I first entered the program I was most interested in earning more money and a management level position (all that remains is the lobotomy...). After being buried in course work for a term or two, I came to find that good business sense can be put to use (and more importantly, is appreciated) regardless of position.
I am a Senior Network Administrator at a start-up telecommunications software company. The knowledge that I have gained in my MBA program about capital budgeting, communication, project management, the differences between leaders and managers (managers manage things, leaders lead people), the need for clear business strategy, and the necessity of strategic fit in technology / software development infrastructure planning and implementation have made me a more valuable employee in my current job. The education I have recieved has allowed me to see more clearly why my job exists and has given me insight into how I might do it better with my company's goals in mind.
I may get more money out of the deal. I may even become a manager or director at some point. But I am here to tell you that there is value beyond the superficial, and it may even help you find a way to become more content with the role you are currently playing in your organization.
Excellent to see that someone else went out to get informed before getting angry.
It seems to me that they are providing a decent service in "good faith" with respect to authors' rights. It's very difficult to criticize the content of a site that has their policies regarding copyrights pop-up as the first block of information. No small print there.
Anyone that has spent countless hours looking for existing research on abstract topics should applaud the efforts of sites like Contentville.com. Commercial or not, I'd like to see more sites like this. It be better if it were free, but if information was truly free, most of us that take part in this site would be seriously underemployed...
The problem isn't with the methodologies, their implementation, or even with the consultants or managment teams that propose them, although these are all easy targets. The issue in most organizations, as they relate to IT support, development, etc., is a general failure to recognize what it is the company is intending to do (read Mission), and then matching policy and process implementation to this overall goal. I've read in responses to this question that, "there are no silver bullets", "methodologies suck", and, "in organizations without methodologies, everyone goes about doing their own thing" (with some paraphrasing). No organization, development, IT, or otherwise, can operate in an efficient manner indefinitely without some means of process management. The wrong methodologies certainly do suck...for those forced to implement them as well as those expecting productive results from their implementation. The only "silver bullets" I've ever seen or heard about in any organization are those that have been carefully contrived with the overall business strategy, and more importantly, the business culture, in mind. Consultants aren't evil, they're just misused that way...