I'm basically the sole IT/Help Desk person for the 129 people in our (philly) office, most of whom are developers and decently tech-saavy, considering it's an eCommerce company. Of course, this doesn't include the 10 in orlando, or 15 in NYC that I support remotely...
My manager/is/ a technical guy, but is in charge of network management and system engineering corp-wide, and has someone else helping for our local office projects, but it means I do all the menial IT/help desk tasks, like programming voicemail/phones, creating email accts, staging/ghosting machines, troubleshooting user problems....
I find that that as a previous poster said, it's not just the ratio (1:120 is definitely stretching me too thin), but also the technical abilities of the user, and the time the IT Dept has to write documtation-- if you can write it down and email it to a user, you don't have to go over it by hand.
Unfortunately, I also find that ramp-up time for new users/employees just entering the company should change the tech-to-user ratio. Because there is preparation needed for each employee, that's less time the tech has for writing documentation or other user issues, not to mention all the questions that new user will more than likely have.
Finally, you also have to factor in any fairly obscure tools (timecard programs, etc.) a company is using, as well as various platforms-- MacOS, Windows NT, UNIX... and if it falls under your job as well, servers to administer- we currently have 50 in our office alone, for about 120 users.
If you fail to have adequate help-desk staff, or you stick them with menial jobs and don't allow them to advance or learn new skills, IT-staff burnout is almost inevitable. It's happening to me. Happy help-desking,
I'm in total agreement with Sumana: sure, I'm offended that he thinks geek girls aren't worth pursuing. Roblimo grants that geek guys have moments when they 'want some loving' when they/aren't/ staring at their monitors. How come geek/girls/ can't want cuddle-time when they're away from their monitors as well? Secondly, it's a heck of a lot nicer when your significant other understands why the heck you're so interested in computers n' stuff. It doesn't have to be the only thing you discuss (Roblimo was right there) but there's something to be said for having like passions. And i'm not talking sex here.
Other than that, his advice is pretty good. Pay attention to what she *says,* her body language...look her in the eye. Sure, body is nice, but it's not everything. Pay her honest compliments... and maybe you'll find someone to share serious time with, more than/instead of some empty "let's get laid" thing, which is probably only a temporary fix anyway.
Best of luck to the nice, sweet, i-do-more-than-talk-about-my-computers geek guys out there. Be yourself. If you fake who you are, you'll be unhappy with what you end up with anyway.
no, didn't say i was, just saying that cuddling with those who/were/ a bit overweight is nice (two sticks don't work as well;).) People would hurt me if i ever said i was fat. --Anneke
-- just slightly overweight makes better cuddle-partners. -- I'm 5'5". -- Red hair./used/ to have freckles. -- definitely a geek. -- Bryn Mawr college grad... your decision if i'm intelligent, talk to me;). -- Can't say i'm into punk music. Although i've had friends with hot pink hair. -- Don't know what IRC stands for, sorry. I know what PPTP stand for though...although that's NT. (i can't help it, i didn't plan to be an NT admin) -- unfortunately, i'm sorta 'taken.'
Point being, ideal (geek) chicks do exist. (not saying i'm yours, just saying they exist.) Just a matter of what you consider 'ideal.'
inDEED. I've found that 'normal' guys (or normal guys my age, at least) have little in common with me or aren't mature enough for me to be interested in.
Having well-adjusted geeks (gee, intelligent conversation/and/ a love of technology/computers!) attracted to me is a bonus, not a curse. Nor does having a passion for computers mean that a 'geek' has to be so one-dimensional that they don't have other intersting facets of their personality as well. Geeks are not by any means all pocket-protector-wearing dorks, any more than my being a geek-chick means I must slump around and giggle nervously a lot. Egads.
Before you complain about us showing you compassion, remember what women have done and are doing to us.
Okay, I don't normally act the part of the anti-male feminist (and won't now) but please-- admittedly, a lot of women leave a LOT to be desired. But in admitting that (as a women), hopefully some men out there will have the guts to admit that a lot of men leave a lot to be desired as well. Stereotypes bashing one sex or the other, IMHO, seem fairly riduculous. Sure, some women reject geeks for being geeks.. whatever it is we're defining "geek" to be (other than people biting off the heads of chickens). But as another woman posted early, we can't deny that women *and* men have been given both the short end of the stick in some situations and preferential treatment in others.
Hopefully you'll be able to find a woman who thinks that a well-padded wallet, if it is, is only a nice bonus to the Nice Geek she just found for herself. If the bank acct is all she's interested, you wouldn't want her anyway.
If it helps any, none of the women I know (myself included) consider the checkbook to be even CLOSE to a reason to date/be with someone.
True, but it's not really about the physical battle between jocks and nerds, but a matter of which is respected more (if you're talking about Net Set vs. Jet Set). Which group is respected for what they do, not who they are. It's all about saying geeks are cool for being geeks (I sure think we are). A meritocracy, as was said: being praised for something worthwhile (your hard-earned knowledge set), not who your parents are, etc.
You can register for a free Exhibits-only pass directy on the LWCE site (http://www.linuxworldexpo.com). Save yourself the stamp and the slashdot guys the papercuts.
This is key. listen to the married guy;) (above). It's that whole "Men are from Mars..." thing. Women talk to men, men try to solve our problems for us, and then women accuse men of "not listening." Men then get frustrated. As far as I can tell, women don't want always want/answers/ to the problems, but rather, just someone to talk to who will sympathize and let them (us) vent for a bit-- let off steam. If we want advice on top of that, we'll ask. (i know, we're weird like that.)
Yes. I think you're a catch. Not the write guy for/me/, perhaps, but i'll admit that,/and/ add that all of that makes you a well-rounded person with a heck of a lot going for you (if only i were more athletic and into eclectic movies, it'd be great. And a bit older.) That said, though, not all women say one thing and mean another. At least not/all/ the time;).
um, sometimes the woman earns the bread as well as, if not instead of, the male figure. Not that the men don't hold the majority in the breadwinner role, but this is a huge generalization here.
I wannt to do some breadwinning,/and/ i want to get married. *i* think it's unfair that women are expected to either exclusively stay at home and raise the kids, or have to BOTH have a career and raise the kids. *shrug*
That friend of yours who moved to Silicon Valley, and said she didn't wanna date that kind of man... *I* would. Geez. Geek guys rock. It's just a matter of finding ones that aren't only geeks, but who have other interests as well, and who/act/ on these interests. I think a lot of women have the (hopefully a??) misconception that geek==nerd, and that He Who Loves Computers is synonomous (sp?) with Boring, which is utterly untrue. On the other hand, most women know nothing about computers, and don't understand the attraction of the Tech world; and are therefore bored by technobabble. The rest of the techies thrive on it:).
as for this: "You'll see models dating men who are WAY less attractive then them." Huh. I can't explain this for you, but I think most people would agree that a compatible personality and INTELLIGENCE are (for me at least) hugely attractive qualities in a man/potential significant other. (That, and extreme knowledge of computers, which often go hand-in-hand.)
On the other hand, maybe it's better NOT to both be obsessed with technology.
I don't think you're giving Rob & Jeff enough credit. Neither they nor anyone else has said that they did it alone-- it *is* all about the community. As you said, they couldn't have done it alone: it was "our" submissions that made it happen. They never denied this.
Rob and Jeff deserve and/amazing/ amount of credit, and have earned every penny they got (okay, maybe not $14 million's worth, but...).
Can any of us say that the average Joe (or AC) among us put in 80 hour weeks running something like slashdot, reading over 300 emails a day (no joke), *and* go to college full-time? I think we should cut them some slack, if not provide open praise for a job well done: here's to the two years they (and the 10+ who helped them as well) gave to The Community (so far), and the community that helped them. Kudos to you all.
He does. Last we heard. Standard CmdrTaco commentary/innuendo, though. gotta love it;).
Re:Why does slashdot crash every time Malda travel
on
LinuxExpo Report
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, but when you only have one or two people at a booth (i.e. Trae McCombs being the main guy at the Linux.com booth) there's only so much wandering you can do at an Expo while simultaneously manning a booth. But if you want to visit/them/ you could always stop by and exchange a few sentences (i actually spent a few hours with Trae at LinuxExpo... really cool guy). On the other hand, it's one thing to never look/up/ when talked to.
You're right that the Slashdot crew didn't seem to be all that mobile, and were pretty absorbed in their laptops: but Hemos was trying to fix the ad server, and I'm sure both he and CmdrTaco/Rob were trying to read the daily emails, and get some posts up, since the Slashdot community doesn't take kindly to a few days sans-(without)news.
I don't think we disagree as much as it may seem. So you're basically saying women shouldn't conform to the already widespread myth that we should be/are asexual. I agree-- I find it just as frustrating to make generalizations (apologies for those that came out like that when I posted last night) restricting the roles of men and women. I don't consider either men or women any less (or more) sexual than the other.
Regarding conforming to a predefined pattern of behavior on the basis of a configuration of my genetalia-- ditto. I find it very frustrating to be judged one way or another just because I'm a woman. I guess i'm also just not used to people who conform to any sort of stereotype ("But we must be conservative and reserved!") for the sake of the stereotype or because they think they 'should'... I'm very used to an open-minded environment, where that sort of self-repression is exceedingly offensive.
We seem to be agreeing-- pardon the misunderstanding.
i disagree-- i think the previous AC was saying that putting stuff like that up here will only disgust the minor 4% of women who/do/ read Slashdot, and discourage others from starting to do so.
Either way,
A) one might assume that women who/are/ into porn, (on the majority, just so i don't alienate some people) aren't into Playboy or the like, for example, and...
B) yes, sex sells, and women's bodies tend to be the ones selling it, but finally,
C) just because women don't like porn doesn't by *any* means mean we are a-sexual. I find it to be a somewhat ridiculous assumption; perhaps it's only that women exhibiting their libido are subjected to a double-standard of what's permissible to show. Either that, or we try to be more tasteful and keep such things (as feeling 'sexual' or being something other than mere reflections of male fantasies) out of the public eye, and instead letting them be displayed in a the intimate, private sphere.
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is a truly fabulous book-- my favorite, actually, and I would agree with the A.C. above-- highly,/highly/ recommended reading. I'm not quite sure how much her philosophy has to do with sysadmin'ing, other than its philosophy that one should do their best, and that man is supreme and his intelligence and accomplishments the sum of his personal worth. So that paragraph above about doing a good job as a sysadmin-- that fits.
Putting down Rand w/o having read her-- careful. I've had more people see me reading her work and say "I/loved/ that book" than any other piece of literature, and no one I know found it boring. It's generally a better idea not to judge something with which you aren't too familiar-- it may weaken the strength of your surrounding arguments, not to mention sound closer to flame than constructive criticism.
"Umm last time I looked, most companies consider the computer systems theirs. They can poke wherever they please, your consent nonwithstanding."
Not quite. Most systems have motd's explaining the policy so you have it every time you log in and can't say they didn't tell you. Normally, it's something along the lines of...
1- people using the system in excess of authority may be monitored and have their activities recorded. 2- in the course of monitoring abusers of the system or during general system maintenance, authorized users may also be monitored. 3- users of the system implicitly consent to the above policies, and users realize the legal repercussions of illicit use.
...or something to that effect. Basically, SysAdmins are supposed to let you keep your privacy-- innocent not until proven guilty, perhaps, but innocent until suspicion causes the sysadmin to check out a few things. Although somewhat Big Brother-esque, it also provides a certain level of security for the legitimate users out there. --Anneke
Slashdot Mirror
My manager /is/ a technical guy, but is in charge of network management and system engineering corp-wide, and has someone else helping for our local office projects, but it means I do all the menial IT/help desk tasks, like programming voicemail/phones, creating email accts, staging/ghosting machines, troubleshooting user problems....
I find that that as a previous poster said, it's not just the ratio (1:120 is definitely stretching me too thin), but also the technical abilities of the user, and the time the IT Dept has to write documtation-- if you can write it down and email it to a user, you don't have to go over it by hand.
Unfortunately, I also find that ramp-up time for new users/employees just entering the company should change the tech-to-user ratio. Because there is preparation needed for each employee, that's less time the tech has for writing documentation or other user issues, not to mention all the questions that new user will more than likely have.
Finally, you also have to factor in any fairly obscure tools (timecard programs, etc.) a company is using, as well as various platforms-- MacOS, Windows NT, UNIX... and if it falls under your job as well, servers to administer- we currently have 50 in our office alone, for about 120 users.
If you fail to have adequate help-desk staff, or you stick them with menial jobs and don't allow them to advance or learn new skills, IT-staff burnout is almost inevitable. It's happening to me. Happy help-desking,
Anneke
--Anneke
I'm in total agreement with Sumana: sure, I'm offended that he thinks geek girls aren't worth pursuing. Roblimo grants that geek guys have moments when they 'want some loving' when they /aren't/ staring at their monitors. How come geek /girls/ can't want cuddle-time when they're away from their monitors as well? Secondly, it's a heck of a lot nicer when your significant other understands why the heck you're so interested in computers n' stuff. It doesn't have to be the only thing you discuss (Roblimo was right there) but there's something to be said for having like passions. And i'm not talking sex here.
Other than that, his advice is pretty good. Pay attention to what she *says,* her body language...look her in the eye. Sure, body is nice, but it's not everything. Pay her honest compliments... and maybe you'll find someone to share serious time with, more than/instead of some empty "let's get laid" thing, which is probably only a temporary fix anyway.
Best of luck to the nice, sweet, i-do-more-than-talk-about-my-computers geek guys out there. Be yourself. If you fake who you are, you'll be unhappy with what you end up with anyway.
--Anneke
I've had my fair share of difficulty finding the 'good ones' too. Quite often, they're taken. *frown.*
As for your other point-- there is. it's called Peer2Peer, a geek site for dating run by the userfriendly.org people. Check it out.
--Anneke
no, didn't say i was, just saying that cuddling with those who /were/ a bit overweight is nice (two sticks don't work as well ;).) People would hurt me if i ever said i was fat.
--Anneke
-- just slightly overweight makes better cuddle-partners. /used/ to have freckles. ;).
-- I'm 5'5".
-- Red hair.
-- definitely a geek.
-- Bryn Mawr college grad... your decision if i'm intelligent, talk to me
-- Can't say i'm into punk music. Although i've had friends with hot pink hair.
-- Don't know what IRC stands for, sorry. I know what PPTP stand for though...although that's NT. (i can't help it, i didn't plan to be an NT admin)
-- unfortunately, i'm sorta 'taken.'
Point being, ideal (geek) chicks do exist. (not saying i'm yours, just saying they exist.) Just a matter of what you consider 'ideal.'
--Anneke
inDEED. I've found that 'normal' guys (or normal guys my age, at least) have little in common with me or aren't mature enough for me to be interested in.
/and/ a love of technology/computers!) attracted to me is a bonus, not a curse. Nor does having a passion for computers mean that a 'geek' has to be so one-dimensional that they don't have other intersting facets of their personality as well. Geeks are not by any means all pocket-protector-wearing dorks, any more than my being a geek-chick means I must slump around and giggle nervously a lot. Egads.
Having well-adjusted geeks (gee, intelligent conversation
Long live geekiness.
--Anneke
Before you complain about us showing you compassion, remember what women have done and are doing to us.
Okay, I don't normally act the part of the anti-male feminist (and won't now) but please-- admittedly, a lot of women leave a LOT to be desired. But in admitting that (as a women), hopefully some men out there will have the guts to admit that a lot of men leave a lot to be desired as well. Stereotypes bashing one sex or the other, IMHO, seem fairly riduculous. Sure, some women reject geeks for being geeks.. whatever it is we're defining "geek" to be (other than people biting off the heads of chickens). But as another woman posted early, we can't deny that women *and* men have been given both the short end of the stick in some situations and preferential treatment in others.
/rant.
I *do* have my own domain registered. I've even given one to my mom as a mother's day gift for her company.... *grin*
That aside, though-- i thought seattle was a fairly big geek town? (#4 wired city in the US or something?) and geekiness is cool.
Hopefully you'll be able to find a woman who thinks that a well-padded wallet, if it is, is only a nice bonus to the Nice Geek she just found for herself. If the bank acct is all she's interested, you wouldn't want her anyway.
If it helps any, none of the women I know (myself included) consider the checkbook to be even CLOSE to a reason to date/be with someone.
Best wishes,
True, but it's not really about the physical battle between jocks and nerds, but a matter of which is respected more (if you're talking about Net Set vs. Jet Set). Which group is respected for what they do, not who they are. It's all about saying geeks are cool for being geeks (I sure think we are). A meritocracy, as was said: being praised for something worthwhile (your hard-earned knowledge set), not who your parents are, etc.
You can register for a free Exhibits-only pass directy on the LWCE site (http://www.linuxworldexpo.com). Save yourself the stamp and the slashdot guys the papercuts.
:).
See everyone there
(whoops, i should have said non-single guy, not married. don't mean to make assumptions about marital status.)
ooh! hear, hear!
;) (above). It's that whole "Men are from Mars..." thing. Women talk to men, men try to solve our problems for us, and then women accuse men of "not listening." Men then get frustrated. As far as I can tell, women don't want always want /answers/ to the problems, but rather, just someone to talk to who will sympathize and let them (us) vent for a bit-- let off steam. If we want advice on top of that, we'll ask. (i know, we're weird like that.)
This is key. listen to the married guy
:)'s,
Yes. I think you're a catch. Not the write guy for /me/, perhaps, but i'll admit that, /and/ add that all of that makes you a well-rounded person with a heck of a lot going for you (if only i were more athletic and into eclectic movies, it'd be great. And a bit older.) That said, though, not all women say one thing and mean another. At least not /all/ the time ;).
Best of luck to you (all).
um, sometimes the woman earns the bread as well as, if not instead of, the male figure. Not that the men don't hold the majority in the breadwinner role, but this is a huge generalization here.
/and/ i want to get married. *i* think it's unfair that women are expected to either exclusively stay at home and raise the kids, or have to BOTH have a career and raise the kids. *shrug*
I wannt to do some breadwinning,
That friend of yours who moved to Silicon Valley, and said she didn't wanna date that kind of man... *I* would. Geez. Geek guys rock. It's just a matter of finding ones that aren't only geeks, but who have other interests as well, and who /act/ on these interests. I think a lot of women have the (hopefully a??) misconception that geek==nerd, and that He Who Loves Computers is synonomous (sp?) with Boring, which is utterly untrue. On the other hand, most women know nothing about computers, and don't understand the attraction of the Tech world; and are therefore bored by technobabble. The rest of the techies thrive on it :).
;).
as for this: "You'll see models dating men who are WAY less attractive then them."
Huh. I can't explain this for you, but I think most people would agree that a compatible personality and INTELLIGENCE are (for me at least) hugely attractive qualities in a man/potential significant other. (That, and extreme knowledge of computers, which often go hand-in-hand.)
On the other hand, maybe it's better NOT to both be obsessed with technology.
Naw
I don't think you're giving Rob & Jeff enough credit. Neither they nor anyone else has said that they did it alone-- it *is* all about the community. As you said, they couldn't have done it alone: it was "our" submissions that made it happen. They never denied this.
/amazing/ amount of credit, and have earned every penny they got (okay, maybe not $14 million's worth, but...).
Rob and Jeff deserve and
Can any of us say that the average Joe (or AC) among us put in 80 hour weeks running something like slashdot, reading over 300 emails a day (no joke), *and* go to college full-time? I think we should cut them some slack, if not provide open praise for a job well done: here's to the two years they (and the 10+ who helped them as well) gave to The Community (so far), and the community that helped them.
Kudos to you all.
My $.02.
He does. Last we heard. Standard CmdrTaco commentary/innuendo, though. gotta love it ;).
Yeah, but when you only have one or two people at a booth (i.e. Trae McCombs being the main guy at the Linux.com booth) there's only so much wandering you can do at an Expo while simultaneously manning a booth. But if you want to visit /them/ you could always stop by and exchange a few sentences (i actually spent a few hours with Trae at LinuxExpo... really cool guy). On the other hand, it's one thing to never look /up/ when talked to.
You're right that the Slashdot crew didn't seem to be all that mobile, and were pretty absorbed in their laptops: but Hemos was trying to fix the ad server, and I'm sure both he and CmdrTaco/Rob were trying to read the daily emails, and get some posts up, since the Slashdot community doesn't take kindly to a few days sans-(without)news.
I don't think we disagree as much as it may seem. So you're basically saying women shouldn't conform to the already widespread myth that we should be/are asexual. I agree-- I find it just as frustrating to make generalizations (apologies for those that came out like that when I posted last night) restricting the roles of men and women. I don't consider either men or women any less (or more) sexual than the other.
Regarding conforming to a predefined pattern of behavior on the basis of a configuration of my genetalia-- ditto. I find it very frustrating to be judged one way or another just because I'm a woman. I guess i'm also just not used to people who conform to any sort of stereotype ("But we must be conservative and reserved!") for the sake of the stereotype or because they think they 'should'... I'm very used to an open-minded environment, where that sort of self-repression is exceedingly offensive.
We seem to be agreeing-- pardon the misunderstanding.
Long live open-mindedness and clarity,
Anneke
i disagree-- i think the previous AC was saying that putting stuff like that up here will only disgust the minor 4% of women who /do/ read Slashdot, and discourage others from starting to do so.
/are/ into porn, (on the majority, just so i don't alienate some people) aren't into Playboy or the like, for example, and...
Either way,
A) one might assume that women who
B) yes, sex sells, and women's bodies tend to be the ones selling it, but finally,
C) just because women don't like porn doesn't by *any* means mean we are a-sexual. I find it to be a somewhat ridiculous assumption; perhaps it's only that women exhibiting their libido are subjected to a double-standard of what's permissible to show. Either that, or we try to be more tasteful and keep such things (as feeling 'sexual' or being something other than mere reflections of male fantasies) out of the public eye, and instead letting them be displayed in a the intimate, private sphere.
My $.02. Happy Slashdotting.
--Anneke
here's the URL w/o the extra space (i.e. so it should work now, although most of you probably got it anyway)--
/ Linux_vs_NT.html
http://www.student.brynmawr.edu/~ahackman/linux
and many thanks, "anarchist," for citing my page-- I'm incredibly flattered!
--Anneke
yup... even chicks are Linux lovers too :).
--Anneke
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is a truly fabulous book-- my favorite, actually, and I would agree with the A.C. above-- highly, /highly/ recommended reading. I'm not quite sure how much her philosophy has to do with sysadmin'ing, other than its philosophy that one should do their best, and that man is supreme and his intelligence and accomplishments the sum of his personal worth. So that paragraph above about doing a good job as a sysadmin-- that fits.
/loved/ that book" than any other piece of literature, and no one I know found it boring. It's generally a better idea not to judge something with which you aren't too familiar-- it may weaken the strength of your surrounding arguments, not to mention sound closer to flame than constructive criticism.
Putting down Rand w/o having read her-- careful. I've had more people see me reading her work and say "I
As for the rest of your commentary-- touche'.
--Anneke
"Umm last time I looked, most companies consider the computer systems theirs. They can poke wherever they please, your consent nonwithstanding."
Not quite. Most systems have motd's explaining the policy so you have it every time you log in and can't say they didn't tell you. Normally, it's something along the lines of...
1- people using the system in excess of authority may be monitored and have their activities recorded.
2- in the course of monitoring abusers of the system or during general system maintenance, authorized users may also be monitored.
3- users of the system implicitly consent to the above policies, and users realize the legal repercussions of illicit use.
...or something to that effect. Basically, SysAdmins are supposed to let you keep your privacy-- innocent not until proven guilty, perhaps, but innocent until suspicion causes the sysadmin to check out a few things. Although somewhat Big Brother-esque, it also provides a certain level of security for the legitimate users out there.
--Anneke