... these undergrads work cheap! And we only have to zap them once with the tazer to get them to stop doing "rm -rf/".
What's the point of this article? That young sysadmins can now be exploited by their school instead of their first employer?
Oh, and what exactly are they training them so well for anyway? Their first job, they'll learn that there's never time nor budget allowed for doing things like setting up Puppet. They want to do that, they can cram it in during lunch and after-hours, and hope they don't get fired if they get it wrong, and zero praise (or even comprehension) if they get it right.
The school's doing them a disservice. Throw them a pile of broken five year old servers, a "datacenter" diagram that looks mysteriously like their dorm closet, and a $10 Starbucks card with a little card that says, "Thank you so much for contributing to my mansion... ahem, er... our company mission this year... without a raise... ahem, without pay since you're an intern... and Happy Holidays from the CEO!" That'll do more to prepare them for the work world than managing big projects like... ooh, mirrors. (Bestill my beating heart. Mirrors! How high tech!)
There, you nailed it. It's all about incentives. That manager knew he'd get that bonus, and acted as anyone would with a carrot in front of them on a stick.
Companies really need to: a) decide exactly what their priorities are. b) create incentives to match.
That fixes a whole lot of evils, when those two relatively simple things are done right.
And talking to a few folks who work at Sun Storage, there are times when they've had customers experience complete, unrecoverable, data loss. Don't ask me how, I don't know, and they didn't say. But it was from ZFS, not just hardware failures, etc...
You're right, he should have just said "Linux" (meaning the kernel) and left it at that. Try finding kernel internals documentation that's kept up to date, or evidence of any serious, comprehensive testing outside of commercial organizations that re-package the kernel for larger products, if even then.
I was speaking directly to their "outsourcing" services. Product-wise, they bought all of those, and haven't screwed them up yet. Growth by acquisition, not talent.
I can't really go into detail as to why I hold this opinion. Let's just say they do good vendor management, since they had no clue what the problem was, after having it explained to them multiple times. Yes, you can make money that way, but you're not saving the organization using you nearly as much money as they'd save just working direct with the vendor(s)...
$300 is not a "significant financial incentive" for anyone buying Macs. Take that as positive or negative, I mean it exactly as stated. The cheapest Mac costs roughly $1000, and spending a third more for 802.11n wireless, a gigabit switch, automated backups, and the usual Apple "easy integration", is bupkis.
Being a GOOD writer is always valued. But you have to be good enough to rise above the ridiculous flood of mediocre writing readily available to all of us. For example, you're reading this instead of a great modern writer, which I'm certainly not.
And the e3 stuff came along late enough that you know it probably wasn't Bezo's idea to begin with. Someone pitched that silliness to him in a conference room somewhere, complete with PowerPoint slides.
I think the over-generalization here is a bit misleading. Let's use your (controversial, but no big deal) analogy with Steve vs. Woz.
Woz might not be a great BUSINESS person. But Steve couldn't engineer a circuit to save his ass.
You needed BOTH to start the company. Once Steve had other talented Engineers following him, then he no longer needed Woz.
But up until that point, he needed someone to do the hard work that he didn't know how to do. And if he didn't have Woz, he wouldn't have gone anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
... these undergrads work cheap! And we only have to zap them once with the tazer to get them to stop doing "rm -rf /".
What's the point of this article? That young sysadmins can now be exploited by their school instead of their first employer?
Oh, and what exactly are they training them so well for anyway? Their first job, they'll learn that there's never time nor budget allowed for doing things like setting up Puppet. They want to do that, they can cram it in during lunch and after-hours, and hope they don't get fired if they get it wrong, and zero praise (or even comprehension) if they get it right.
The school's doing them a disservice. Throw them a pile of broken five year old servers, a "datacenter" diagram that looks mysteriously like their dorm closet, and a $10 Starbucks card with a little card that says, "Thank you so much for contributing to my mansion... ahem, er... our company mission this year... without a raise... ahem, without pay since you're an intern... and Happy Holidays from the CEO!" That'll do more to prepare them for the work world than managing big projects like... ooh, mirrors. (Bestill my beating heart. Mirrors! How high tech!)
LOL!
There, you nailed it. It's all about incentives. That manager knew he'd get that bonus, and acted as anyone would with a carrot in front of them on a stick.
Companies really need to:
a) decide exactly what their priorities are.
b) create incentives to match.
That fixes a whole lot of evils, when those two relatively simple things are done right.
And talking to a few folks who work at Sun Storage, there are times when they've had customers experience complete, unrecoverable, data loss. Don't ask me how, I don't know, and they didn't say. But it was from ZFS, not just hardware failures, etc...
... the Federal Agency in charge of pipe dreams?
First the failed auction of spectrum to try to convince companies that already have national networks, to build another one.
Now the desire to drop a well-engineered system for one that's barely manageable and doesn't cover where the original does.
Are there any real engineers left at the FCC who have any say in this silliness? Any that the FCC Commissioners actually listen to?
The CFO and a first year noob doing P&L spreadsheet error correction are both called "Accountants", too.
Because taking the work of the scientists, giving nothing back, and not profiting from it is much much better.
Someone pays their bills.
Great line, can I use it while replacing "vendor" with "politician" or "political party"? :-)
You're right, he should have just said "Linux" (meaning the kernel) and left it at that. Try finding kernel internals documentation that's kept up to date, or evidence of any serious, comprehensive testing outside of commercial organizations that re-package the kernel for larger products, if even then.
Heh good point. Change that to, "always valued eventually". Maybe not while they're alive and need the money. LOL!
No one pays for backups until the first incident.
"We know from history that we don't learn from history." - Warren Buffet.
No, 1/3 the cost of the CHEAPEST Mac is not "approaching the price of the machine itself". Learn math.
And then you wander off topic talking about their employment status? Wow.
p.s. What makes you think I'm not in the "business world"? (Rolls eyes...)
I was speaking directly to their "outsourcing" services. Product-wise, they bought all of those, and haven't screwed them up yet. Growth by acquisition, not talent.
I can't really go into detail as to why I hold this opinion. Let's just say they do good vendor management, since they had no clue what the problem was, after having it explained to them multiple times. Yes, you can make money that way, but you're not saving the organization using you nearly as much money as they'd save just working direct with the vendor(s)...
Hope and Change!
$300 is not a "significant financial incentive" for anyone buying Macs. Take that as positive or negative, I mean it exactly as stated. The cheapest Mac costs roughly $1000, and spending a third more for 802.11n wireless, a gigabit switch, automated backups, and the usual Apple "easy integration", is bupkis.
So buy a $50 USB drive. Time Machine doesn't need Time Capsule to work.
Ahh, I see you've never used Outlook...
Back that truck up. EMC knows nothing about running ANY organization. There, that's better.
Being a GOOD writer is always valued. But you have to be good enough to rise above the ridiculous flood of mediocre writing readily available to all of us. For example, you're reading this instead of a great modern writer, which I'm certainly not.
The "traditional" news agencies get just as little editorial oversight, these days.
Yeah, could be. Not exactly their original/core business... just a sideshow, revenue-wise.
Excellent point. I had been thinking something similar, but couldn't articulate it. Nicely done.
Turning enemies to red jello with flying lead isn't exactly out of style yet.
And the e3 stuff came along late enough that you know it probably wasn't Bezo's idea to begin with. Someone pitched that silliness to him in a conference room somewhere, complete with PowerPoint slides.
I think the over-generalization here is a bit misleading. Let's use your (controversial, but no big deal) analogy with Steve vs. Woz.
Woz might not be a great BUSINESS person. But Steve couldn't engineer a circuit to save his ass.
You needed BOTH to start the company. Once Steve had other talented Engineers following him, then he no longer needed Woz.
But up until that point, he needed someone to do the hard work that he didn't know how to do. And if he didn't have Woz, he wouldn't have gone anywhere.
The beginning is often the hardest.